[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Issue]
[Pages 24213-24731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 24213]]
106
VOLUME 146--PART 17
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
This ``bullet'' symbol identifies statements or insertions
which are not spoken by a member of the Senate on the floor.
SENATE--Wednesday, October 25, 2000
(Legislative day of Friday, September 22, 2000)
The Senate met at 11:01 a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and
was called to order by the President pro tempore [Mr. Thurmond].
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Dear Lord and Father of mankind
Forgive our feverish ways . . .
Take from our souls the strain and stress,
And let our ordered lives confess
The beauty of Your peace.--Whittier.
In this time of prayer, we claim the assurance given through Isaiah.
You promise to keep us in perfect peace if we allow You to stay our
minds on You. This is the peace we need today. The conflict and tension
of these days threaten to rob us of peace in our souls. It is easy to
catch the emotional virus of frustration and exasperation, criticism
and consternation, party spirit and quid pro quo manipulation.
Then we remember that Your peace is the healing antidote that can
survive any circumstance. Give us the peace of a trusting and committed
mind guided by Your Spirit. May Your deep peace flow into us, calming
our impatience and flow from us to others claiming Your inspiration. In
the name of the Prince of Peace who whispers in our souls, ``Peace I
leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I
give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be
afraid.''--John 14:27. May this be a great day of working cooperatively
to finish the work of the 106th Congress for Your glory and the good of
America. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable George V. Voinovich, a Senator from the State of Ohio,
led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The able acting majority
leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, speaking on behalf of the leader, for the
information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning
business until 12:30 p.m. today, with Senators Durbin and Thomas in
control of the time. At 12:30, the Senate will recess until 2:15 for
the weekly party conferences to meet. The House is expected to consider
the continuing resolution this morning and the conference report to
accompany the foreign operations appropriations bill this afternoon.
Therefore, the Senate will begin its consideration of those bills as
soon as they become available. It is expected that the final votes
regarding S. 2508, the Ute Indian water rights bill, will be this
afternoon. Senators should be prepared to vote beginning around 4:30
this afternoon and throughout the remainder of the week in an effort to
complete all business by the end of the week.
The leader thanks all Senators for their attention to this schedule.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time
is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a
period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the
hour of 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to
5 minutes each.
The Senator from Alaska.
____________________
DAIRY MARKET ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.
2773, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2773) to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 to enhance dairy markets through dairy product mandatory
reporting, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Amendment No. 4340
Mr. STEVENS. Senator Craig has an amendment at the desk, and I ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Craig,
proposes an amendment numbered 4340.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Dairy Market Enhancement Act
of 2000''.
SEC. 2. DAIRY PRODUCT MANDATORY REPORTING.
The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle C--Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting
``SEC. 271. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of this subtitle is to establish a program of
information regarding the marketing of dairy products that--
``(1) provides information that can be readily understood
by producers and other market participants, including
information with respect to prices, quantities sold, and
inventories of dairy products;
[[Page 24214]]
``(2) improves the price and supply reporting services of
the Department of Agriculture; and
``(3) encourages competition in the marketplace for dairy
products.
``SEC. 272. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subtitle:
``(1) Dairy products.--The term `dairy products' means
manufactured dairy products that are used by the Secretary to
establish minimum prices for Class III and Class IV milk
under a Federal milk marketing order issued under section 8c
of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted
with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
of 1937.
``(2) Manufacturer.--The term `manufacturer' means any
person engaged in the business of buying milk in commerce for
the purpose of manufacturing dairy products.
``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
``SEC. 273. MANDATORY REPORTING FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
program of mandatory dairy product information reporting that
will--
``(1) provide timely, accurate, and reliable market
information;
``(2) facilitate more informed marketing decisions; and
``(3) promote competition in the dairy product
manufacturing industry.
``(b) Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--In establishing the program, the
Secretary shall only--
``(A)(i) subject to the conditions described in paragraph
(2), require each manufacturer to report to the Secretary
information concerning the price, quantity, and moisture
content of dairy products sold by the manufacturer; and
``(ii) modify the format used to provide the information on
the day before the date of enactment of this subtitle to
ensure that the information can be readily understood by
market participants; and
``(B) require each manufacturer and other person storing
dairy products to report to the Secretary, at a periodic
interval determined by the Secretary, information on the
quantity of dairy products stored.
``(2) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in paragraph
(1)(A)(i) are that--
``(A) the information referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is
required only with respect to those package sizes actually
used to establish minimum prices for Class III or Class IV
milk under a Federal milk marketing order;
``(B) the information referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is
required only to the extent that the information is actually
used to establish minimum prices for Class III or Class IV
milk under a Federal milk marketing order;
``(C) the frequency of the required reporting under
paragraph (1)(A)(i) does not exceed the frequency used to
establish minimum prices for Class III or Class IV milk under
a Federal milk marketing order; and
``(D) the Secretary may exempt from all reporting
requirements any manufacturer that processes and markets less
than 1,000,000 pounds of dairy products per year.
``(c) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to ensure compliance with, and
otherwise carry out, this subtitle.
``(2) Confidentiality.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise directed by the
Secretary or the Attorney General for enforcement purposes,
no officer, employee, or agent of the United States shall
make available to the public information, statistics, or
documents obtained from or submitted by any person under this
subtitle other than in a manner that ensures that
confidentiality is preserved regarding the identity of
persons, including parties to a contract, and proprietary
business information.
``(B) Relation to other requirements.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no facts or information obtained
under this subtitle shall be disclosed in accordance with
section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
``(3) Verification.--The Secretary shall take such actions
as the Secretary considers necessary to verify the accuracy
of the information submitted or reported under this subtitle.
``(4) Enforcement.--
``(A) Unlawful act.--It shall be unlawful and a violation
of this subtitle for any person subject to this subtitle to
willfully fail or refuse to provide, or delay the timely
reporting of, accurate information to the Secretary in
accordance with this subtitle.
``(B) Order.--After providing notice and an opportunity for
a hearing to affected persons, the Secretary may issue an
order against any person to cease and desist from continuing
any violation of this subtitle.
``(C) Appeal.--
``(i) In general.--The order of the Secretary under
subparagraph (B) shall be final and conclusive unless an
affected person files an appeal of the order of the Secretary
in United States district court not later than 30 days after
the date of the issuance of the order.
``(ii) Findings.--A finding of the Secretary under this
paragraph shall be set aside only if the finding is found to
be unsupported by substantial evidence.
``(D) Noncompliance with order.--
``(i) In general.--If a person subject to this subtitle
fails to obey an order issued under this paragraph after the
order has become final and unappealable, or after the
appropriate United States district court has entered a final
judgment in favor of the Secretary, the United States may
apply to the appropriate United States district court for
enforcement of the order.
``(ii) Enforcement.--If the court determines that the order
was lawfully made and duly served and that the person
violated the order, the court shall enforce the order.
``(iii) Civil penalty.--If the court finds that the person
violated the order, the person shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not more than $10,000 for each offense.
``(5) Fees.--The Secretary shall not charge or assess a
user fee, transaction fee, service charge, assessment,
reimbursement fee, or any other fee under this subtitle for--
``(A) the submission or reporting of information;
``(B) the receipt or availability of, or access to,
published reports or information; or
``(C) any other activity required under this subtitle.
``(6) Recordkeeping.--Each person required to report
information to the Secretary under this subtitle shall
maintain, and make available to the Secretary, on request,
original contracts, agreements, receipts, and other records
associated with the sale or storage of any dairy products
during the 2-year period beginning on the date of the
creation of the records.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to, the
bill be read for the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid on the table, and any statements relating to this bill be printed
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4340) was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2773), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
NATIONAL RECORDING PRESERVATION ACT OF 2000
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4846, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4846) to establish the National Recording
Registry in the Library of Congress to maintain and preserve
sound recordings that are culturally, historically, or
aesthetically significant, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Amendment No. 4341
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Daschle
and others have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Daschle, for
himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment
numbered 4341.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In section 101, insert ``and collections of sound
recordings'' after ``recordings''.
In section 102(a)(1), insert ``and collections of sound
recordings'' after ``recordings''.
In section 102(a)(1), strike ``10 years'' and insert ``25
years''.
In section 102(a)(3), insert ``and collections of sound
recordings'' after ``recordings''.
In section 102(b), insert ``or collection of sound
recordings'' after ``recording''.
In section 103(a), insert ``or collection of sound
recordings'' after ``recording'' each place it appears.
In section 103(b)(1), insert ``or collection of sound
recordings'' after ``sound recording''.
In section 103(b)(4), insert ``or collection of sound
recordings'' after ``sound recording'' the first place it
appears.
In section 103(c), insert ``or collection of sound
recordings'' after ``sound recording''.
In section 103(c), strike ``recording,'' and insert
``recording or collection,''.
In section 104(a), insert ``(including electronic access)''
after ``reasonable access''.
In the heading for section 122(d)(2), insert ``or
organization'' after ``organization''.
In section 124(a)(1), insert ``and collections of sound
recordings'' after ``recordings'' the first place it appears.
[[Page 24215]]
Add at the end of section 124 the following new subsection:
(c) Encouraging Accessibility to Registry and Out of Print
Recordings.--The Board shall encourage the owners of
recordings and collections of recordings included in the
National Recording Registry and the owners of out of print
recordings to permit digital access to such recordings
through the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center at
Culpeper, Virginia, in order to reduce the portion of the
Nation's recorded cultural legacy which is inaccessible to
students, educators, and others, and may suggest such other
measures as it considers reasonable and appropriate to
increase public accessibility to such recordings.
Insert after section 125 the following new section:
SEC. 126. ESTABLISHMENT OF BYLAWS BY LIBRARIAN.
The Librarian may establish such bylaws (consistent with
this subtitle) as the Librarian considers appropriate to
govern the organization and operation of the Board, including
bylaws relating to appointments and removals of members or
organizations described in section 122(a)(2) which may be
required as a result of changes in the title, membership, or
nature of such organizations occurring after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Redesignate section 133 as section 134 and insert after
section 132 the following new section:
SEC. 133. ENCOURAGING ACTIVITIES TO FOCUS ON RARE AND
ENDANGERED RECORDINGS.
Congress encourages the Librarian and the Board, in
carrying out their duties under this Act, to undertake
activities designed to preserve and bring attention to sound
recordings which are rare and sound recordings and
collections of recordings which are in danger of becoming
lost due to deterioration.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be
agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read for the third time and passed,
the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and the title amendment
be agreed to, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4341) was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 4846), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
The title amendment (No. 4342) was agreed to, as follows:
Amend the title to read as follows: ``A Bill to establish
the National Recording Registry in the Library of Congress to
maintain and preserve sound recordings and collections of
sound recordings that are culturally, historically, or
aesthetically significant, and for other purposes.''.
____________________
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wish to make a statement about the
discretionary spending caps that will be coming before the Senate on
the foreign assistance appropriations bill. There is a provision on
that bill which is required to adjust the spending caps because of the
limitations in the 1997 Budget Act.
Subsection (a) of the amendment that will be before the Senate
increases the discretionary cap for budget authority under the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 from $541.1 billion to $637 billion, and increases
the discretionary cap for general purpose outlays under the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 from $547.3 billion to $612.7 billion.
When discretionary highway and mass transit outlays of $32.3
billion--separate cap categories--are added to this amount, we will
have allowable discretionary spending of $645 billion under this raised
cap.
Subsection (b)(1) includes emergency spending already committed
during this session under the new cap limits. Emergency spending is
usually excluded from cap limits. In this instance, we have included
such spending within the cap limits in order to be assured we will not
invade the Social Security surplus.
We have another subsection, (b)(2), that provides for adjustments
under these caps to continue, as permitted by current law, for
continuing disability reviews, CDRs: $450 million in budget authority;
the earned-income tax compliance initiative, EITC, that is $145 million
in budget authority, and adoption assistance of $20 million in budget
authority; and for an outlay adjustment of 0.5 percent.
Subsection (c) provides for a 0.5-percent adjustment for budget
authority to cover the differences between CBO and OMB scoring methods.
A similar adjustment was provided last year.
These caps assure us that we will have the funds available to deal
with the remaining two bills that are very contentious; the State-
Justice-Commerce bill and the Labor-Health and Human Services bill. For
each of those bills, we allocated portions of the 302(b) authority that
was given to our Appropriations Committee under the budget resolution
for the year 2001. However, after those bills had passed and gone to
conference, we recovered portions of the 302(b) allocation and
allocated that to Housing and Urban Development and the energy and
water bill. The result is that these two bills that are in conference
now do not have the full funding that would be required to bring them
back across the floor to the Senate.
This adjustment to the 2001 discretionary spending caps, as contained
in the foreign assistance bill that will be before the Senate, I hope
this afternoon, are necessary in order that those two bills can be
reallocated funding sufficient to assure that they will be able to be
considered and passed by the Senate.
It has been a very difficult year for the Appropriations Committee
because of the circumstances, because of the differences between the
President's budget and the congressional budget resolution. There is a
substantial gap between those two documents, and we have done our best
to work with them. This action that we have taken now to lift the
spending caps will give us the opportunity to work out the differences
with the administration. I do believe that should and can be completed
today. It is my firm hope we will complete action on the other two
bills today so the House may commence consideration of them tomorrow
and that the Senate will consider them Friday. That, of course, is
going to take a lot of understanding and cooperation from all Members
of the Senate, and I for one urge that take place.
I have not been home since the first week of August. We, on the
Appropriations Committee, have been working around the clock on this
process since the second week of August. It is time this come to an
end. The disputes and conflicts between the bills, and between the
administration and the Congress, between the House and Senate, and
between Members of each body and within each body, are the most
intensive I have ever seen. But it is time we realize that at the end
of this week we will be 1 week away from the elections. I do not think
Congress ought to be in session in the week before the elections, and I
am going to do my utmost to see that we finish these bills by Friday.
If that is not possible, the leader will have to decide what we do.
I, for one, intend to go home Saturday.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business. Senators are to be
recognized for up to 5 minutes each.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
POLITICS AND ELECTIONS
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is so much happening in the world of
politics and elections, it is almost hard to know what topic to talk
about. Education is certainly No. 1 on the agenda of the American
people, and we are now in the final stages, I hope, of agreeing--I am
hopeful--on an education bill for our country. We have made some good
progress. I am very glad; it appears President Clinton's budget
priority for afterschool programs is winning out. I am hoping that is
the case.
Many of us have worked long and hard to make the point that
afterschool care is crucial, that it is the
[[Page 24216]]
best antidote to high crime, juvenile crime that occurs in the
afternoons after school. It is a no-brainer. We know if kids are kept
occupied after school, it keeps them out of trouble. We have seen these
programs work. We have seen that juvenile crime occurs between 3 and 6
p.m. If children are engaged in stimulating activity after school, it
helps.
President Clinton and the Democrats have been trying to ensure that
the 1 million children who are waiting for afterschool programs, in
fact, get afterschool programs. After reading press reports, I am glad
to report to my colleagues that this looks as if it is on the way.
However, we still have a major disagreement on school construction. I
have seen some of our schools that are falling apart. Again, I hope we
can reach agreement on this crucial issue.
The two candidates for President have been arguing over education.
The good news is that education is the topic of the day. It is
important, when we realize we have to import people to come into this
country to take the high-tech jobs, and what a tragedy it is that our
young people are not trained. So education is key.
Of course, there is an argument between the two candidates on whether
or not education should be a national priority, which is Vice President
Gore's view, or Governor Bush's view that really the National
Government should not get very involved. This is a key distinction.
I side with Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, who said it is
crucial to our national defense to have education as a top priority and
to make sure that our young people are educated in math, science, and
reading, everything they have to know--even in those days before high
tech. I think Vice President Gore is correct.
There is also a flap over some claims that the Texas students were
doing really well. It turns out that the independent Rand report issued
just yesterday says, in fact, those Texas students were not tested with
national tests. If one looks at the national tests, they are just not
making it. Clearly, this education issue is going to go on.
I come here as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee to talk
about another issue, a very important issue, and that is an issue that
is being debated in the Foreign Relations Committee right now. I am not
on the particular subcommittees that are holding this hearing, but it
seems to me the hearing going on about U.S.-Russia policy in 1995 are
really aimed at trying to take a hit at Vice President Gore.
It is interesting that Republican officials who are speaking up 2
weeks before the election never even talked about the agreement that
came out of those meetings in 1995. They did not talk about them for 5
years, but 2 weeks before an election they are out there trying to hurt
the Vice President. This is politics at its very worst.
Frankly, what we ought to be talking about is foreign policy in the
years 2000 and 2001 in this century because some of the comments made
by Governor Bush and his advisers are raising all kinds of alarms
throughout the world. It is important that they be put on the table.
These remarks have to do with the U.S. policy in the Balkans. Advisers
to Governor Bush have followed up on his statements he made in the last
debate that if he was elected President, he would negotiate for the
removal of all U.S. peacekeeping troops from the Balkans. As one can
imagine, this announcement has set off alarms in capitals of our
European allies who rightly believe that such a policy would weaken and
divide NATO.
One of the things that alarmed me about Governor Bush's comments was
he said our military is really there to fight wars and win wars, not to
keep the peace; that is our role. That puts our people in a very
difficult position because if, in fact, we have a situation where
suddenly our military is no longer involved in peacekeeping but only in
fighting, then I think our NATO allies will say: OK, you do the
fighting, we will do the peacekeeping. And it means that our troops
will be in harm's way and our pilots will be in harm's way. This is a
great concern to me.
According to today's New York Times, Lord Robertson, the NATO
Secretary General, has regularly told visiting American Congressmen
that the Bush proposal could undermine the whole idea of risk sharing,
which is precisely the glue that holds our alliance together.
The Washington Post quotes one European Ambassador saying:
If the U.S. says it will not perform certain tasks, then
the basic consensus of ``all for one and one for all'' begins
to unravel. . . . The integrated military command could fall
apart and so would [our] alliance.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous
consent request?
Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield as long as I do not lose time
and do not lose my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from California.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 p.m.
today, provided that the Senate has received the papers, the Senate
proceed to the consideration of the 1-day continuing resolution, and no
amendments or motions be in order, and that the Senate proceed to an
immediate vote on final passage of the joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I just want to find out if
this was cleared on our side.
Mr. ENZI. This was cleared on both sides.
Mrs. BOXER. Then I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. In light of this agreement, the first vote today will occur
at 4:30 p.m.
I thank the Senator.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
____________________
POLITICS AND ELECTIONS
Mrs. BOXER. Let me take us back from before the unanimous consent
request was made and kind of summarize where I was going.
We had a statement by Governor Bush. The statement was that he wanted
to see all of those peacekeeping troops come home from the Balkans. He
said we should not be involved in peacekeeping, only in fighting. As a
member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am concerned and clearly
our NATO allies are concerned. Lord Robertson, the NATO Secretary
General, again, has said this could undermine our relationship with our
NATO alliance.
The Washington Post says one European Ambassador was quoted as
saying: If the U.S. says it will not perform certain tasks, then the
basic consensus of NATO begins to unravel.
Now, I remember being very surprised, because I was at the second
debate, when Governor Bush made the point that we were carrying the
load in the Balkans in terms of the peacekeeping troops. I knew that
was incorrect. The fact is, American troops are no more than 20 percent
of the total. American aid represents no more than 20 percent of what
is being provided to Bosnia and Kosovo.
I would hate to see us walk away from peacekeeping and tell everyone
we are the fighters; and then have our allies say: OK, you do the
fighting; we do the peacekeeping. It is of great concern to me.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
some editorials that have been written on this subject by the New York
Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today.
There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 2000]
Risking NATO
Gov. George W. Bush wants a new ``division of labor''
within NATO, the U.S.-European alliance that has helped keep
the peace for the past half-century. His proposal would more
likely lead to a division of NATO itself--to the end of the
alliance.
[[Page 24217]]
Mr. Bush hinted at this view before, with his denunciation
of U.S. ``nation-building'' in the Balkans, but it was his
national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who spelled out
exactly what he means in a New York Times interview published
Saturday. Ms. Rice said that America's allies in Europe
should furnish the ground troops for missions such as
peacekeeping in Kosovo and Bosnia, while the United States
should offer ``the kind of support we can provide, such as
air power.'' In other words: You Europeans take all the risks
while we hover safety above the fray. No allies would long
accept such a deal, nor should they be expected to.
The proposal is particularly misguided given that European
allies already are bearing the brunt of peacekeeping duties
in the Balkans. They provide about four-fifths of needed
troops. The United States has deployed some 11,000 troops in
Kosovo and Bosnia, less than one percent of its active duty
force. For the United States, this is a win-win situation:
Its policy is implemented, but the burden of implementation
is widely shared. Under Ms. Rice's proposal, which was
officially endorsed by Bush campaign headquarters, the United
States would lose its ability to steer policy, risk the
world's most successful alliance--and very likely inherit a
far larger burden once the Balkans erupted again.
The Clinton Administration has picked an unfortunate
argument in response. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,
again to the Times, said that even raising the issue was
dangerous to U.S. interests. This recalls the Gore-Lieberman
campaign's contention that Mr. Bush's criticism of U.S.
military readiness is dangerous because it comforts U.S.
enemies. This effort to squelch debate is preposterous; these
are precisely the kinds of issues that should be aired in a
campaign.
The more sensible response would be to point out that the
Clinton-Gore policies seems to be having an effect. The
Balkans are at peace; democracy is sprouting almost
everywhere; even the apparently invulnerable Slobodan
Milosevic has been knocked from his perch. Of course many
problems remain, the gains are fragile and, yes, U.S. troops
will be needed for some time. But surely helping democracy
take root throughout Europe is worth the modest price of that
modest deployment.
____
[From the New York Times, Oct. 24, 2000]
No Time for a Balkan Exit
Sharp contrasts emerged over the weekend in the way the
Bush and Gore campaigns view America's proper military role
in Europe. The debate began when Condoleezza Rice, one of
Gov. George W. Bush's leading foreign policy advisers, told
The Times's Michael Gordon that a Bush administration would
ask European members of NATO to gradually take over full
responsibility for providing peacekeeping forces for Bosnia
and Kosovo. Vice President Gore countered that carrying out
such a policy could destabilize the Balkans and jeopardize
the future of NATO, America's most important military
alliance.
Debates over how and where United States military forces
should be stationed are a healthy part of presidential
contests. Ms. Rice's proposal is consistent with the Bush
campaign's view that extended peacekeeping missions degrade
the combat readiness of American military forces and that the
Pentagon should concentrate its resources on preparing for
crises where Washington alone has the might to deter, and, if
necessary, combat aggression, whether in the Persian Gulf,
the Korean Peninsula or a future military conflict in Europe.
But on the specifics of America's role in the Balkans, Ms.
Rice's proposal is misguided for several reasons. The job of
securing peace in Bosnia and Kosovo is far from complete. The
American share of the peacekeeping has already been
substantially reduced. Finally, the NATO alliance has been
built on a concept of shared risk that is inconsistent with a
total withdrawal of American ground forces from Balkan
peacekeeping.
It is true that military conditions in Bosnia are now more
stable than they were when NATO troops were first introduced
five years ago and that the situation in Kosovo has also
improved in the year since Serbian forces withdrew. But in
neither place is there yet enough security for displaced
refugees to return to their homes or for elections to take
place without the risk of physical intimidation. The
departure of Slobodan Milosevic from Yugoslavia's presidency
creates new opportunities for easing tensions in both Bosnia
and Kosovo, provided local troublemakers can be kept in
check. That will require a continued strong NATO presence.
The Clinton administration, meanwhile, has done a good job
of insisting that America's share of peacekeeping
responsibilities be steadily reduced. There are now only
11,400 American troops in the Balkans, about one-fifth of the
NATO total. When NATO first went into Bosnia, about a third
of its 60,000 troops were Americans. Balkan peacekeeping
costs account for just over 1 percent of the Pentagon's $280
billion budget, leaving more than enough for military needs
elsewhere.
Asking Europe to accept a total withdrawal of American
ground forces from the Balkans needlessly challenges some of
the basic assumptions of the Western military alliance. NATO
was formed not just to counter Soviet bloc military threats.
It was also designed to eliminate some of the historic
military rivalries in Europe that led to two world wars. NATO
provides a framework for European and American forces to
cooperate in joint operations under a single overall
commander--traditionally an American. Europe cannot be
expected to accept an alliance in which Washington exercises
political and military leadership but does not subject its
own forces to any of the risks of ground operations. The Bush
campaign is right when it insists that the United States must
be selective in where it stations ground forces. But the
Balkans is not the place to cut back.
____
[From the USA Today, Oct. 24, 2000]
Bush Takes Unwise Step Away From Peacekeeping
today's debate: u.s. and europe
our view: for the u.s. to lead nato, it must participate
Most Americans want to see their country as a world leader,
but they are unenthusiastic about the human and financial
costs of doing what may be necessary to lead. So it's no
surprise that both presidential candidates have treaded
carefully on defining America's future role in peacekeeping.
But during the weekend, the Bush campaign refined its
position in a way that's likely to win votes while weakening
the United States' leadership role in Europe.
In a proposal that plays into the public's ambivalence,
George W. Bush's senior national security aide, Condoleezza
Rice, suggested that a Bush administration would tell NATO
that Europeans should take over peacekeeping in the Balkans.
The U.S. would focus instead on potential trouble spots where
it alone can act, she said, such as the Persian Gulf and the
Taiwan Straits.
Her remarks were an effort to flesh out Bush's repeated
theme that U.S. forces should focus on the ability to fight
wars, not what he derides as ``nation building.'' It's
appealing logic to a country that has never been enthusiastic
about long-term foreign commitments. But it is rooted in the
dubious assumption that the United States can effectively
lead NATO, the West's primary defense alliance, without being
a full player.
Both the recent history of the Balkans and the longer-term
history of Europe say that is shortsighted.
The tragedy of post-Cold War Europe in the '90s was that
our allies were unable to deal with chaos, ``ethnic
cleansing'' and the serious threat of an expanding war on
their doorstep until the United States belatedly got
involved. In both Bosnia and Kosovo, European governments
squabbled among themselves until the United States finally
agreed to share some of the risk on the ground. The ethnic
cleansing was curtailed without a single U.S. casualty.
Today, Americans comprise less than 20% of the Bosnia-
Kosovo peacekeeping force, a contribution former NATO
commander Wesley Clark calls the bare minimum if the United
States wants to have any influence on NATO actions there. If
the United States were to pull out, the record suggest it
would be naive to expect Europe to respond meaningfully to
the next Bosnia or Kosovo.
The deeper risk extends beyond the Balkans to the overall
U.S. role in NATO. Since NATO's formation in the wake of
World War II, it has served to quiet the continent's
longstanding rivalries. Weakening U.S. leadership would set
off a counterproductive race to fill the gap, with
unfavorable consequences for U.S. interests.
A core part of the Bush argument is that the armed forces
are too stretched to manage peacekeeping and prepare for war
effectively. But the U.S. deployment to the Balkans is less
than 10% of our military in Europe, and the cost is scarcely
1% of the Pentagon budget. Whatever shortcomings there may be
in defense readiness or troop morale, blaming them on Balkans
peacekeeping defies logic.
Vice President Gore, who played a central role in the
Clinton administration's policy in the Balkans, accused Bush
of a ``lack of judgment and a complete misunderstanding of
history.''
Expecting Europe to act decisively on its own or to accept
U.S. leadership without at least token U.S. involvement in
the field is sadly unrealistic.
Mrs. BOXER. I am going to read a little bit from those editorials
when I can find my glasses, which is an important thing. Here they are.
When I started out in politics, I did not need these reading glasses.
So that shows you how long I have been around.
This is from the Washington Post:
The Balkans are at peace; democracy is sprouting almost
everywhere; even the apparently invulnerable Slobodan
Milosevic has been knocked from his perch. Of course, many
problems remain, the gains are fragile and, yes, U.S. troops
will be needed for some time. But surely helping democracy
take root throughout Europe is worth the modest price of that
modest deployment [of peacekeeping troops].
[[Page 24218]]
The New York Times says that George Bush's adviser's proposal is
misguided. That is the proposal to say that we will no longer
participate in peacekeeping.
The job of securing peace in Bosnia and Kosovo is far from
complete. The American share of the peacekeeping has already
been substantially reduced. Finally, the NATO alliance has
been built on a concept of shared risk that is inconsistent
with a total withdrawal of American ground forces from Balkan
peacekeeping.
Now, we know that America's share, they say, of peacekeeping
responsibilities is steadily reducing.
There are now only 11,400 American troops in the Balkans,
about one-fifth of the NATO total. When NATO first went into
Bosnia, about a third of its 60,000 troops were Americans.
Balkan peacekeeping costs [are only] 1 percent of the
Pentagon's . . . budget. . . .
Asking Europe to accept a total withdrawal of American
ground forces from the Balkans needlessly challenges some of
the basic assumptions of [our] western military alliance.
Our Western military alliance has served us well. Why would we now--
when we see the tinderbox over in the Middle East--come up with a plan
that would shake up our allies, that would worry our friends? This is
the time not to make those kinds of proposals. And those proposals
themselves are dangerous for the world.
I will also quote from USA Today. So you are seeing a whole number of
newspapers coming out against this Bush plan.
They say:
The deeper risk extends beyond the Balkans to the overall
U.S. role in NATO. Since NATO's formation in the wake of
World War II, it has served to quiet the continent's
longstanding rivalries. Weakening U.S. leadership would set
off a counterproductive race to fill the gap, with
unfavorable consequences for U.S. interests.
I have to believe this kind of a policy--either it was not thought
out or it is a radical departure from what has worked for us not only
through the cold war but after the cold war. Governor Bush says we
can't do all this alone. And I agree with him; we can't do all this
alone. But the bizarre thing is, he is pulling us out of a situation--
or would want to, if he were President--where we are only about 20
percent of the force. This is an example of the way we ought to
integrate all of the responsibilities of the various allies. I find it
amazing that this policy would come up at this time when we have the
world in such a precarious position as we look at what is happening in
the Middle East.
So in any event, in closing, I will make these points in two areas:
education and foreign policy.
I think there are some interesting new developments the American
people ought to look at. One, we have a candidate for President, who is
the Governor of Texas, who is using Texas as the model. We just learned
that Texas is almost dead last as a place people would want to raise
their children. That is an unbiased report that came out. We have a
Rand study, which is a study that Bush himself has cited, which says
these kids in Texas are simply not making it.
We now have this foreign policy fiasco. While the Republicans want to
look at what went on in 1995 between Russia and America, we now realize
that what we ought to be looking at is this latest proposal by Governor
Bush, and to try to debunk it, that would say we ought to pull our
peacekeeping troops out, that America should not even have a role in
peacekeeping. It is rattling our NATO allies.
Again, NATO has served us well. Why? Because we all cooperate and we
work together and we come up with plans together. And to have this, if
you will, ``Molotov cocktail'' from George Bush just thrown out--
unprovoked--to shake up our NATO allies, and say, ``We are not going to
do peacekeeping; we are going to do fighting,'' I say to this Senate
that I do not like that division of responsibilities, where America
does all the fighting and our NATO allies do the peacekeeping.
I do not like shaking up our allies at this time. I think it shows a
certain recklessness, a certain lack of experience, a certain
misunderstanding of history of what it has been like for us to build
these alliances. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am
very concerned by this proposal. I believe it will have a very negative
impact.
I am someone who has fought long and hard for burdensharing. I have
offered a number of amendments in the House and the Senate asserting
that it is important our allies carry their fair share. I will go on
record as saying 80 percent of the troops in the Balkans is a fair
share; 80 percent of our commitment in the Balkans is being paid by the
Europeans, 20 percent by the Americans. That is good. That is a fair
share. That is working.
To throw this kind of a proposal out there at this time when the
Middle East is in crisis, when we need our allies at the table, when we
need good relationships with our friends, shows a certain
irresponsibility and riskiness upon which the American people are not
going to look very kindly. And certainly, while the Foreign Relations
Committee is beating up on the Vice President 2 weeks before an
election about Russia-United States relations; our problem today isn't
Russia-United States relations; our problem today is trying to do the
best we can with our allies in the world to end some of these tragedies
going on in the Middle East, to work for a new Yugoslavia that is
democratic, to make sure we build on Madeleine Albright's seeming
success in North Korea where, by the way, we have 37,000 troops. Maybe
my friend from Illinois knows this. I did not hear any comments about
pulling out troops from the Koreas, but maybe that is his next
proposal, where we have kept the peace and stability.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from California will yield.
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. She has raised an important point. Most people would
agree that the Governor of Texas has limited personal exposure and
experience when it comes to foreign policy issues. That does not mean
he is disqualified. There have been Presidents who have been Governors.
But we have to judge him on what he has said.
His suggestion of the withdrawal of troops in some parts of the world
raises serious questions as to whether or not he has considered the
consequences. The United States made a commitment, for example, in
Europe after World War II to stop the spread of communism. It cost the
American people trillions of dollars. It paid off: 250 years later,
communism is virtually wiped off the map and these countries, the
Balkans and eastern European countries, now enjoy democracy and
freedom.
There was only one country in the world that could do that, and that
was the United States. We have military skill, the great men and women
in uniform, and we have a reputation of involving ourselves in foreign
policy--not to come away with any property or treasure; we are there to
try to promote the ideals and values of our country.
So when Governor Bush suggests withdrawing troops in some parts of
the world, you have to wonder, has he really reflected on this? Has he
taken the time to try to measure why he would change policies that even
his father supported, perhaps President Reagan supported, and now he
wants to change these policies and approaches?
This is an important element. Thank goodness we live in a world that
is generally at peace, but it is a dangerous world that at any moment
can flare up. We need leadership in the White House that understands
the consequences of its actions.
I salute the Senator from California. What we are seeing happen today
in North Korea--where they are finally talking to us; they are finally
agreeing to perhaps end the missile testing--is a very positive
development. It is only because the United States made a commitment in
South Korea with the lives of our service men and women and then kept
troops there to protect it that we have reached that point today.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be given 5 minutes
following the completion of my time.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I did not hear the request.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask that Senator Durbin be given 5 minutes when I
conclude my time.
[[Page 24219]]
Mr. KYL. I object, Mr. President, on the ground that I was going to
speak at a quarter till.
Mr. DURBIN. May I make an inquiry of the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I want to be fair to my colleagues. It was my
understanding that the Democratic side would have the first 25 minutes
in morning business and then the Republican side. But in the interest
of my colleagues who have given up their own time, I am happy to work
out an arrangement with them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the objection over adding 5 minutes or
taking the 5 minutes?
Mr. KYL. Let me withdraw the objection.
Mrs. BOXER. I was just making sure that Senator Durbin would be
recognized for the next 5 minutes.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I withdraw my objection. I did not
understand the Senator's request. My understanding was that the
minority time would have expired about now. I understand that is not
the case. Therefore, I do not object to the request of the Senator from
California to have Senator Durbin speak next. I was hoping to be able
to speak before noon, but that may not be possible.
Mr. DURBIN. May I ask for clarification? How much time does the
Democratic side have remaining in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic side has a little over 24
minutes. The Republican side has 20 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Chair make an inquiry of my two Republican
colleagues as to how long they would like to speak.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, if I could clarify, it is no big deal.
What we had was the morning business time divided between Republicans
and Democrats. The leader's time took some of that, so we didn't have
enough. We ought to share equally what remains. Whatever that division
is, it ought to be divided between the two of us.
Mrs. BOXER. If I may restate my unanimous consent request,
understanding that we have 24 minutes remaining, I would appreciate it
if Senator Durbin could follow my remarks so we have some train of
thought. Then we can take the next 10 minutes from the Republican time,
if they would like to use it. I don't think Senator Durbin has a
problem; I don't have a problem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. If we would determine exactly the time that is remaining and
then maybe add to that my opportunity to speak after Senator Durbin.
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to.
Mr. KYL. If we could suspend one moment.
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I ask if we could suspend the request
for one moment. Senator Thomas is technically in control of the time on
our side. He should be the one who understands this request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. When the Senator from California finishes, the
Senator from Illinois will speak for 5 minutes, followed by the Senator
from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Out of the 10 minutes I originally had, how much time do
I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used her time.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 60 seconds to recap what I
said before the time goes to Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. We have taken longer deciding who is going to talk than
we have on what we really want to say. I will sum up my points today.
I think two issues are coming to the floor in this election.
Education is one of them. We have the Governor of Texas saying his kids
in Texas are doing great. We learned today that was based on a State
test, not a national test. So that is something we have to look at. We
have a new study showing that Texas is one of the worst places to raise
a child. That is from another objective, nonpartisan study.
Now we have a hearing going on in Foreign Relations beating up on
Vice President Gore for something that happened in 1995, when not one
Republican ever complained about it until 2 weeks before the election,
when Governor Bush has now made a proposal that in essence threw a bomb
into NATO--figuratively, not literally--and our NATO allies are worried
and concerned that suddenly we have on the table a proposal--not very
well thought out, in my view--that would drastically change NATO and
would say, in essence, that the United States will be the fighters,
someone else will be the peacekeepers.
I think it is more dangerous for our people to take that on alone. It
is a big worry I have. It shows in this sensitive time why we need
proven, effective, experienced leadership in the White House. We don't
want to have someone coming in and throwing this kind of proposal into
NATO. We need our NATO allies now more than ever. We have great
opportunities for peace in the world. We are not going to make them
come true if we dissect NATO and destroy it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the sake of my colleagues on the
floor, Senator Thomas and others, it is my understanding that I am to
speak for 10 minutes, and then the Republican side will be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was made for 5 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Five minutes, fine. I will confine my remarks to 5
minutes in the interest of my patient colleagues. After Senator Thomas
and Senator Kyl, I would like to reclaim the Democratic time under
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MAKING TOUGH CHOICES
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in 2 weeks the American people are going
to face one of the toughest choices they have had perhaps in modern
memory.
This Presidential race is not just a choice between two individuals
and whether, frankly, one has a better image on television, or more
experience, or a better speaking voice. It comes down to basic
questions of values envisioned for this country. There are two
contrasting views to be chosen. I can recall 4 years ago coming to the
Senate when the Republicans all lined up and said that our economy was
in such terrible shape, and the Federal budget was in such bad shape,
we would have to amend the Constitution with a balanced budget
amendment because of our deficits. They were so desperate they wanted
to give the power to the Federal courts to stop Congress from spending.
Four years later, look at the difference. We are not talking about
deficits; we are talking about how to spend the surplus, and we are
talking about an economy which, for 8 years, has been cooking, creating
22 million new jobs. There is more home ownership than at any time in
our history. Welfare rolls are coming down and crime rates are coming
down. Opportunities for businesses, for minorities, for women are
unparalleled in our history. When you look at advanced placement
courses in schools, we have more Hispanics and African Americans
enrolling in them than ever before in our history.
America is moving forward, and I am glad to say we have been part of
it in Congress. We can't take credit for it anymore than the President
can or Alan Greenspan can. It is a joint effort of families and
businesses across America. But make no mistake, the right policy in
Washington set the stage for this to happen. When President Clinton
said, ``I am going to make a meaningful effort to reduce the national
deficits,'' frankly, we didn't get a single Republican vote to support
us. Not one.
[[Page 24220]]
Vice President Gore came to the floor of the Senate and cast the tie-
breaking vote, and we started on a path in 1993 that led to where we
are today. There are some people who think this is automatic in
America, that prosperity is a matter of standing aside and watching it
happen.
I know better. I have been in the Congress long enough to know that
the wrong policies in the White House can jeopardize economic
prosperity. Do you remember the early days of the Reagan years when
they came up with an idea called ``supply side economics'' and the
appropriately named ``Laffer curve''? We followed that crazy notion
long enough to find ourselves deep in red ink, with the biggest
deficits in history, the largest national debt and America on the
ropes. Thank goodness we have broken away from that.
Should we experiment again? George W. Bush suggests he wants a $1.6
trillion tax cut going primarily to wealthy people in America. Can we
run that risk? The highest 1 percent of wage earners who will see over
40 percent of the George W. Bush tax cut are people who are making more
than $300,000 a year. I can't understand why a person who has an income
of $25,000 a month needs a $2,000 a month tax cut. But that is what
Governor Bush has proposed. He says it is only fair and right; these
are taxpayers, too. Think of Bill Gates. He has been very successful
with Microsoft. He is worth billions of dollars. According to George W.
Bush, he needs a tax cut. I don't think so.
George W. Bush should take into consideration that the net worth of
Bill Gates is greater than the combined net worth of 106 million
Americans. He doesn't need our help. The people who need our help,
frankly, are families struggling to pay for college expenses. We on the
Democratic side believe that we need tax cuts targeted to help families
in a real way so they can deduct college tuition and fees up to $12,000
a year to help kids get through college and have a better life.
We also believe we ought to help families who are going to work
trying to find something to do with their children. Day care is an
important issue for so many families. We want to increase the tax
credit for day care and also give a tax credit for stay-at-home moms
who are willing to make the economic sacrifice for their children.
Finally, when it comes to long-term care, so many of us have seen
aging parents and grandparents who need a helping hand. I have seen
families making extra sacrifices for those parents. Our tax program
would give a targeted tax cut to help those families.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
____________________
CAMPAIGNING ON THE SENATE FLOOR
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think it is somewhat unseemly to use the
Senate floor for campaign purposes with respect to attacking the
qualifications of one of the two candidates for President of the United
States. I would like to do some business here and suggest that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who use their time to engage
in campaign tactics really ought to be helping us take care of a bit of
business that I think ought to move to the top of the agenda, such as
fighting terrorism in the aftermath of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.
____________________
ENHANCING THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we now have more reports of specific credible
evidence of planned attacks against the United States--terrorism that
must be prevented. We have not done everything we can do to prevent
terrorism. According to a Commission that has reported to the Congress,
there is more to be done. I have incorporated that Commission's
recommendations into a bill. We are trying to get the bill passed. It
runs into objections from the other side. Today, I am going to lay it
out because there isn't much time left.
Earlier this month, I introduced the Counterterrorism Act of 2000,
cosponsored by my friend and colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein. This
should have bipartisan support. As the chairman and ranking member of
the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government
Information, I have held hearings, along with Senator Feinstein, on
steps that would better prepare this country to thwart and defend
against and prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. Our legislation
will do that by capturing many of the recommendations of the National
Commission on Terrorism.
The Commission was mandated by the Congress, and it released its
report earlier this year. It is bipartisan, led by Ambassador Paul
Bremer and Maurice Sonnenberg. They have a long record--both of them--
of experience and expertise in this matter. The Commission, with 10
members in all, came to unanimous conclusions on the gaps in America's
counterterrorism efforts and made extensive recommendations in their
report.
In addition to Ambassador Bremer, who formerly served as Ambassador-
at-Large for Counterterrorism and Mr. Sonnenberg, who serves on the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the Commission
included eight other outstanding experts in the field: former CIA
Director, James Woolsey; former Assistant Director-in-Charge of the
FBI's National Security Division, John Lewis; former Congresswoman Jane
Harman, who served on the House Armed Services and Intelligence
Committees; former Under Secretary of Defense, Fred Ikle; former
Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Special Operations Command, Gen. Wayne
Downing; Director of National Security Studies at the Council on
Foreign Relations, Richard Betts; former foreign policy adviser to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Gardner Peckham; Harvard
professor Juliette Kayyem, who formerly served as legal advisor to the
U.S. Attorney General.
In June, the members of this Commission testified before the
Intelligence Committee, of which I am a member, with their findings and
recommendations. A week later, the Commission's report was the subject
of a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. At the end of June, Senator
Feinstein and I invited the Commissioners to testify at a hearing of
the Judiciary subcommittee which I chair. The purpose of our hearing
was to explore the findings of the Commission and clarify some
recommendations that have been mischaracterized. So the Senate thought
that this Commission report was important enough to hold three specific
hearings on its findings and recommendations.
Senator Feinstein and I then decided to take action on the
recommendations by drafting the Counterterrorism Act of 2000. We
believe this is an important first step in addressing shortfalls in
America's fight against the growing threat of terrorism.
In summary, this is what the bill would do:
First, it expresses the sense of Congress that the United States
Government should take immediate actions to investigate the unprovoked
attack on the U.S.S. Cole, should ensure that the perpetrators of this
cowardly act are brought to justice.
It directs the President to establish a joint task force to develop a
broad approach toward discouraging the fundraising of international
terrorists.
It directs the Director of the CIA to report to Congress with a
response to the Commission's findings regarding guidelines for
recruitment of terrorist informants and whether those guidelines
inhibit the recruitment of such informants.
In effect, what the Commission said is if you are going to try to
infiltrate terrorist organizations, you are probably dealing with
nefarious characters. They are not Boy Scouts. And you can't demand of
them the same clean standards that we would in trying to recruit
informants against other governments. When you are dealing with
terrorist organizations, you are dealing with terrorists.
The bill also directs the Attorney General to conduct a review of the
[[Page 24221]]
legal authority of various agencies, including the Defense Department,
to respond to catastrophic terrorist attacks, and it requires that a
report be provided to the Congress.
It directs the President to establish a long-term research and
development program relating to technology to prevent, preempt,
interdict, and respond to catastrophic terrorist attack.
It directs the FBI Director to report to Congress on the feasibility
of creating an intelligence reporting function within the Bureau to
assist in disseminating information collected by the Bureau on
international terrorism and other national security matters.
It directs the President to report to Congress on legal authorities
that govern the sharing of criminal wiretap information between law
enforcement agencies and the intelligence community. The Commission
noted there is currently a great deal of confusion in this area. We
have to get that squared away so the agencies know how they can share
information with each other.
The bill would direct the Attorney General to report to Congress the
recommendations on how to improve controls on biological pathogens and
the equipment necessary to produce biological weapons. It directs the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress with
recommendations for improving security and physical protection of
biological pathogens at research laboratories and other facilities.
It authorizes the full reimbursement for professional liability
insurance for law enforcement or intelligence officers performing
counterterrorism duties.
And finally, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that Syria
should remain on the list of states that sponsor terrorism, as should
Iran, until they meet certain conditions.
I recently received a letter from Ambassador Bremer and Mr.
Sonnenberg, expressing very strong support for the Kyl-Feinstein
legislation. I also received letters from the American Israeli Public
Affairs Committee, the Zionist Organization of America, and the Anti-
Defamation League applauding the bill. In addition, the American Jewish
Congress released a statement in support of the legislation.
I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks these
documents be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. KYL. The text of the Counterterrorism Act 2000 should be familiar
to Members because we tried to move it as an amendment to the
intelligence authorization bill. We were open to comments by Senators
and we made several modifications to the language in order to suit
Senators and the Department of Justice. We agreed in the end to
withdraw the bill at that point so the intelligence bill could move
forward but indicated our desire then to move the bill as a separate
bill, which is now what we are doing.
Among the Senators who have talked to us is Senator Leahy. We have
tried to address his concerns with respect to the bill. Originally his
staff advised that if the Justice Department didn't object to the bill,
Senator Leahy would consent to its passage. The Justice Department has
cleared the bill. After that, Senator Leahy's office advised us they
desired to have 10 other changes considered and sent another list of 4
other changes. Senator Feinstein and I agreed to make changes to the
bill to accommodate 12 of those 14 requests of Senator Leahy. Yet he
still remains in opposition. Under the rules of the Senate prevailing
at this time, any Senator can object to the consideration of the
legislation and thus block it, which Senator Leahy, I understand, has
done.
This morning my office received some additional concerns purportedly
coming from Senator Leahy. I find them, frankly, not to rise to the
level that should take the Senate's time. For example, he objects to a
provision, or his staff objects to a provision, that requires the
President to report to Congress on the Commission's recommendations
about sharing law enforcement information with intelligence agencies on
the grounds that this would help set ``a dangerous precedent for
blurring the line between law enforcement and intelligence
activities.'' A report to Congress on legal authorities on the state of
the law sets no dangerous precedent. There are similar types of
concerns expressed.
We have to get serious about this. At the very moment that our forces
are on a heightened state of alert, at the very moment our embassies
are telling people not to travel to certain countries because of
terrorist threats against Americans, the Congress has before it a bill
embodying the recommendations of the Terrorism Commission, and we are
not acting on it because, as far as I know, one Member of this body is
not willing to allow it to move forward.
I plead with him, I plead with other Members, if there are concerns,
let's talk about them. But the time is short. Perfection cannot be the
enemy of the good considering the nature of the challenge that we face
with terrorists around the world and the need to do more about it. This
isn't simply something that has been pulled out of thin air to try to
deal with this problem. We have embodied most of the recommendations of
the Terrorism Commission specifically mandated by Congress to give us
recommendations about what else we need to be doing in this
legislation.
I say to Senator Leahy and any others, time is short. We need to
visit. We need to talk about these things. We need to clear them away
so we can pass this legislation. After the Senate acts, the House will
need to act. They are expected to act with alacrity. For example,
Representative Gilman, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and
Representative Goss, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and I
understand the leadership is prepared, if we can pass this bill, to
take it up very quickly. However, I don't know how many days or hours
are left in this session.
I think it would be a travesty, given the events of the past month,
given the threats that currently have been made against the United
States, for the Congress to ignore the recommendations of the very
Commission that we asked to give us advice, to ignore the
recommendations of that Commission and conclude this Congress without
acting to pass those recommendations to take additional steps to deal
with the terrorist threat.
Let's leave politics aside. This is a bipartisan effort of Senator
Feinstein and myself. It has broad support on both sides of the aisle.
I encourage my colleagues to please come forth if they have additional
concerns so we can get this done.
Exhibit 1
September 22, 2000.
Senator Jon Kyl,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: In our capacities as former Chairman and
Vice Chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, we
have been asked to comment on the proposed legislation which
we understand you intend to introduce to the 106th Congress
(called the ``Counterterrorism Act of 2000'').
As you know, our bipartisan Commission concluded that the
threat to Americans from terrorism is changing and becoming
more serious. To meet this threat, the Commission made a
number of important recommendations to the President and
Congress in its final report of June 5, 2000.
We have reviewed the draft bill and wish to commend you and
your colleagues for the job of translating into law a number
of the Commission's most important recommendations. We are
particularly pleased to see the bill address issues such as
state sponsorship of terrorism, better collection and
dissemination of terrorist intelligence, a broader strategy
for disrupting terrorist fund-raising, and efforts to prevent
or deal with catastrophic terrorism in the United States.
We hope that this important bill will become law and that
Congress and the Executive branch will do everything possible
to implement it expeditiously.
Respectfully,
L. Paul Bromer, III,
Former Chairman, National Commission on Terrorism.
Maurice Sonnenberg,
Former Vice Chairman, National Commission on Terrorism.
[[Page 24222]]
____
AIPAC,
Washington, DC, October 16, 2000.
Hon. Jon L. Kyl,
U.S. Senate, Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: On behalf of AIPAC, we are writing to
express our appreciation for your introduction of the
Counterterrorism Act of 2000. This legislation takes a number
of important steps to address the growing problem of
terrorism in our country and abroad.
This bipartisan measure adopts many of the key
recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorism,
particularly with respect to long-term research and
development efforts and methods of improving controls over
biological pathogens. We believe this legislation will
encourage cooperation among states like the United States and
Israel that have worked so closely in fighting the scourge of
terrorism. Of course, we also endorse the legislation's
intent that Iran and Syria should remain on the list of
states that sponsor terrorism until they cease their support
for terrorist actions.
Thank you again for your leadership, and please let us know
if we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Howard Kohr,
Executive Director.
Marvin Feuer,
Director of Defense & Strategic Issues.
____
Zionist Organization
of America,
New York, NY, October 11, 2000.
Senator Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: On behalf of the Zionist Organization of
America (ZOA), which is the oldest and one of the largest
Zionist organizations in the United States, I am writing to
express the ZOA's enthusiastic support for S. 2507, the
Counterterrorism Act of 2000.
This vital legislation will ensure that our country takes
swift and effective action to impede the ability of terrorist
groups to receive funding, acquire technology for use as
weapons, and recruit new members. We have all seen, in recent
years, the kind of devastation that terrorist groups can
wreak. Our government must do everything possible to combat
terrorist groups--and S. 2507 will mandate specific and
important steps that will play a crucial role in the fight
against terrorism.
We are also pleased to note that the S. 2507 urges that
Syria be kept on the U.S. list of terror-sponsoring states
until it takes concrete anti-terror steps, such as shutting
down terrorist training camps and prohibiting the transfer of
weapons to terrorists through Syrian-controlled territory.
The legislation also appropriately urges that Iran be kept on
the list of terror-sponsors until there is concrete,
indisputable evidence that Iran has changed its ways and
forsaken terrorism. In the absence of such actions,
governments such as those in Syria and Iran must be treated
as the rogue regimes which they are.
With gratitude for your leadership role in this effort,
Sincerely,
Morton A. Klein,
National President,
Zionist Organization of America.
____
ADL,
New York, NY, October 12, 2000.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: We welcome your leadership in
introducing legislation to codify several important proposals
of the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorism. As an
organization committed to monitoring hate groups while
safeguarding civil liberties, we support the bill's tough,
constitutional approach to investigating and prosecuting
terrorist crimes.
The bill's mechanism for allowing classified evidence to be
used within a sound due process a framework represents the
kind of balanced approach which would prevent the improper
treatment of individuals, while allowing the government to
protect sources. The legislation would also implement useful
steps to prevent the US from being used as a fundraising base
for terrorism.
It is well established that the government has the
constitutional right--and the duty--to keep our nation from
being used as a base for terrorist activity. The legislation
you have crafted makes vital improvements in our nation's
capability to investigate, deter, and prevent terrorism.
Sincerely,
Howard P. Berkowitz,
National Chairman.
Abraham H. Foxman,
National Director.
____
AJCongress Welcomes Legislation Responding to Threat of Biological and
Chemical Attacks by Terrorists; Calls Measure `A Beginning Plan' to
Deal With the Danger
American Jewish Congress Executive Director Phil Baum
issued the following statement today following the decision
by Senators Jon Kyl and Dianne Feinstein to introduce
legislation responding to the recent report of the National
Commission on Terrorism:
The danger not only to this country but to all of civil
society from the threat of biological and chemical weapons is
becoming ever more real and apparent. For some time now,
commentators have been warning of the growing risk of
terrorist attacks with these weapons unless effective counter
measures are quickly put in place.
Those most expert and familiar with these matters warn that
the question is not whether there will be an attack, but
when.
A sobering report released recently by the National
Commission on Terrorism has documented these concerns and has
begun the process of alerting Americans to the danger we face
and the steps that can be taken to meet that threat.
Until now, little has been done concretely to implement the
Commission's report. Fortunately, there are now plans in the
Senate to attach as an amendment to the fiscal 2001
Intelligence Authorization Act a measure which is attempting
to respond to this challenge. Introduced by Senators Jon Kyl
(R-Ariz) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), the legislation lays
out at least a beginning plan for dealing with these
problems.
The bill for the first time would impose rigorous
restrictions on procedures used in research labs handling
pathogens; calls for presidential leadership in the
development of new technologies to counter terrorist attacks;
limits the capacity of terrorist groups to raise funds in
this country--which is often done under the guise of raising
funds for social programs; and mandates the CIA and the FBI
to report on the continuing effectiveness of anti-terrorist
measures currently in place.
One provision of the bill--authorizing the FBI to share
foreign intelligence information obtained from domestic
wiretaps with the CIA and other intelligence agencies--has
quite properly met with criticism has consequently has been
dropped by Senator Kyl. We are convinced that an effective
fight against the new terrorist threat can be waged without
violating Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties--
protections which must remain our first priority.
As the American people begin to focus on the dangers of
chemical and biological terrorism, two equally unacceptable
dangers present themselves: that we remain indifferent to the
threat, or that we overreact, at the expense of our civil
liberties. Neither is acceptable. A measured response is
necessary, and the Kyl-Feinstein bill begins that process.
The legislation presents the Senate with the opportunity to
move the American people off dead center and to address the
danger in a composed and rational manner, without endangering
American freedoms or our country's sense of confidence in its
future. The new legislation rests on the premise that the
future can be best assured by a realistic address to the
dangers we confront.
New technologies have been a blessing for this generation.
In the hands of terrorists, they become a curse for all
generations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
____________________
SENATE BUSINESS
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Arizona in
requesting the business of the Senate be allowed to go forward. We have
seen many filibusters all year. That is what has gotten us into this
situation where we are past October 1 and still working on the budget.
I think we ought to be doing the business of the Senate. My
predecessor, Alan Simpson, who had this seat in the Senate, said
several times, an accusation that isn't answered is an accusation
accepted. There are a couple of things I have to clear up from this
morning.
First, we did all this work on a balanced budget without the balanced
budget constitutional amendment. Yes, we did. But the debate on the
balanced budget constitutional amendment is what made the people of
America rise up and tell every single one of their representatives that
they wanted the budget of this country balanced. And it was the heat
the people of this country put on the Congress that led Members to
balance the budget. That wouldn't have happened without the debate on
the balanced budget.
That is the reason we have what is being referred to as a ``surplus''
today. It isn't a surplus. It is tax overcharge. We have collected more
from the people than we had planned to spend. We ought to refer to it
as that.
I could not begin to cover all of the accusations that were
misaccusations. Another real important one I have to
[[Page 24223]]
cover is the Reaganomics attack. Yes, giving the money back to the
people, as Reagan suggested, resulted in a 30-percent increase in
revenue to this country. So why do we have such a big deficit? Because
people spent it. We cannot spend more than we take in. It is a pretty
basic principle of economics. Reaganomics increased revenue.
The other side, who was in control of the Congress at that time,
outspent what he was able to bring in by increasing business in this
country. The balanced budget amendment increased the economy of this
Nation. Everybody agrees balancing the budget has done that. If we get
back to a position where it isn't balanced, people will lose confidence
in the economy, and we will be back where we started, with ever-
increasing deficits, particularly if we dramatically increase spending
each year.
I notice the Secretary of the Treasury took an unusual approach
yesterday and got into the debate on Social Security.
The Social Security issue does come down to: Whom do you trust? Every
year that I have been here, there has been a promise that there will be
Social Security reform. I went to a White House conference. I have to
say it was one of the best planned, best organized, and best done
conferences I have ever seen. One of the reasons was that Republicans
and Democrats, House and Senate, were invited to be a part of it. When
it finished, there was a special part for everybody from the House and
Senate to participate in--again, Republicans and Democrats. We sat down
with the President and we agreed there needed to be Social Security
reform and that reform had to have the fingerprint of everybody on it,
that it could not be used as a Social Security scare.
We have saved bill No. 1 for the President's Social Security reform.
Every year that I have been here, the President in his State of the
Union speech has said: The most important thing for this country is to
solve the Social Security problem. We saved bill No. 1 for him. We
never got a solution.
The President of the Senate, who is the Vice President of the United
States, has been a part of these efforts. He says he has delivered on
all his promises. That is a promise that was made. That is a promise
that has not been kept. Social Security has not been reformed.
There has been another effort involved in this, too, and that has
been a bipartisan commission--again, Republicans and Democrats sitting
down to talk about how to save Social Security. They came up with a
plan. They had to have a supermajority to have that plan actually
presented to us, and the President's nominees to that committee were
the ones who objected and made it one vote short of being a request
that could be presented to us. Again, a bipartisan solution. That
bipartisan solution is what you are hearing Governor Bush talk about.
It is something that has been presented in a number of plans here in
the Senate, but it needs the endorsement of both Republicans and
Democrats, and the elimination of a veto threat at the Presidential
level, to be able to solve that problem.
Why do we need to solve it? You have heard how far we extended it and
how we are getting extra money into the Social Security trust fund. The
money in the Social Security trust fund is IOUs, T-bills. Now we are
using the Social Security surplus to pay down the private debt for the
United States. Do you know what that does? That lets us spend more
money. When we have private debt out there, we pay the interest on a
regular basis. When we spend Social Security surplus to pay down the
national debt, the private part of the national debt, we increase the
Social Security debt and we just put in IOUs to pay the interest.
Why is that important? Sometime the debt will come due. You hear a
lot of different numbers about when the debt comes due: 2013 is the
magic time when the baby boomers move into the group of recipients of
Social Security and start jerking out enormous amounts of money from
Social Security--2013. They say Social Security is secure until 2037.
That is until the last dime is drawn. It will not work that way. Here
is why it will not. In 2025, the ones of us who are here--with the
exception of maybe one or two--will not be here. There will be a
different generation that will be in the Senate and in the Congress.
These will be people who have paid into Social Security their whole
life and will realize they will not get a dime out of it.
Here is another little problem. When it comes appropriations time,
all they are going to do is decide how big the check for interest is
going to be, because the national debt will be so huge at that time
that we will not build a road, we will not do anything for the
military, we will not do anything for education--we will pay interest.
How excited do you think the people of this country are going to be to
just be paying interest on a debt from the last century and to have no
benefit coming their way? I suggest there could be a revolution in this
country, an end to Social Security. Future generations may not feel the
same need to take care of their parents and other elderly in the
country because they themselves are not going to get any benefit. It is
not going to be there to take care of them. So it needs to be solved
now.
We are also talking about prescription drugs. This is a very
complicated issue. There are at least six plans out there, any one of
which could provide prescription drug coverage for seniors. It is
something in which we are all interested. It is something that needs to
be done. We need to be sure that every person in this country can get
the prescription drugs they need, and we need to be sure every person
in this country doesn't have to make a choice between food or their
prescription drugs. There have been two plans proposed. They are quite
different.
One of the things I like to use is this chart. I think it lends a
little validity to the decisions between the two principal plans. One
is provided by Governor Bush, one is provided by Vice President Gore.
Those are the two main ones. I have to tell you, the biggest difference
between the two is that Governor Bush's plan provides for choice, your
choice. Vice President Gore's plan calls for a national plan. The
decisions will be made in Washington. You will not have the
flexibility.
Since we are talking about how some of Mr. Gore's drug proposals
work, I suggest they lack a little sincerity and are going to make life
much harder for working Americans. Here are some thoughts on the
Medicare prescription drug plan. This is the biggest secret out there.
Mr. Gore's plan would cover 2.6 million fewer low-income Americans than
the plan offered by Governor Bush and introduced in the Senate by
Republicans. That is because Mr. Gore's plan offers low-income
subsidies only up to 150 percent of poverty, while Mr. Bush's plan
would help seniors up to 175 percent of poverty.
Mr. Gore's plan would not even become effective until 2002. On top of
that, Mr. Gore's plan would also displace the coverage that 70 percent
of the current Medicare recipients already have. For those seniors
whose employer offered a retirement benefit, there is now no incentive
for the company to continue that coverage, leaving the senior with no
option but the HCFA-run program. For all the stock Mr. Gore puts into
the agenda, and the advice of the AMA, he apparently has not been
concerned by their assertion that the HCFA--that is, this national
organization that will run his prescription drug plan--is the IRS of
the new millennium. I, for one, do not see the sincerity in putting
more people on the Titanic. As my friend from Texas often says about
putting people on programs under the care of HCFA, it would be a
disaster.
If Mr. Gore had sincere concerns about the health and welfare of
seniors, he would focus on real solutions that stabilize the Medicare
program, offer seniors comprehensive health care, and enable seniors to
select coverage, including prescriptions, that meets their needs and
budgets. That is a commitment Governor Bush has already made. Governor
Bush would provide immediate drug coverage for those seniors who right
now cannot afford it. He doesn't cross his fingers and take his chances
with HCFA. Instead, he builds
[[Page 24224]]
on the existing drug assistance programs in the States.
Here are a few statistics about the immediate impact of the proposal.
Half of women beneficiaries who are currently without coverage would
gain immediate coverage. Almost three- fourths of the minority seniors
currently without coverage would gain immediate coverage. And the most
frail of our seniors, those over 80 years old, would improve their
access under the Bush plan.
Another important part of the Bush proposal is that States will not
be restricted from offering low-income subsidies above 175 percent of
poverty. Under the Gore plan, there is no option for States to pool
funds and ease the expense of drug coverage for even more seniors.
Why is this chart important? This chart was done by the Washington
Post. People who understand newspapers in this country understand what
the Washington Post does will not be favorable to Governor Bush. They
have a tendency to be favorable to the other side. So when they do a
chart, a person ought to pay a little bit of attention to it. This is
from the article that came with the chart:
Bush details Medicare plan, September 5: Texas Governor
George Bush today proposed spending $198 billion to enhance
Medicare over the next 10 years, including covering the full
cost of prescription drugs for seniors with low incomes.
Bush's plan was modeled on a bipartisan proposal by Senator
John Breaux, Democrat from Louisiana, and Senator Bill Frist,
Republican from Tennessee.
This is the commission I was talking about.
Bush's plan proposes ``fully subsidizing people with
incomes less than 135 percent of the poverty level and
creating a sliding scale for people with slightly more money.
But Gore would stop the sliding scale at 150 percent of the
poverty level, while Bush would extend it to 175 percent.
As I mentioned, a lot of States like that flexibility. A newspaper
that normally would not give good reviews, gives a good review. One
problem is the cost over the next 10 years would be $198 billion. The
chart they did comparing the two shows $158 billion. They were charging
him with $40 billion more in costs than what their chart actually
shows.
I hope people will pay some attention to the comparisons. I ask
unanimous consent that the chart be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 6, 2000]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Gore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREMIUMS
25 percent of health plans' monthly charge $25 per month starting in
2002, increasing to $44 by
2008.
COPAYMENT FOR EACH PRESCRIPTION
Not spelled out. Would be determined by Government would pay 50
individual plan. percent up to maximum of
$2,000 when the program
starts, increasing to
$5,000 by 2008.
COVERAGE FOR CATASTROPHIC EXPENSES
Government pays all costs above $6,000 per Government pays all costs
year. above $4,000 per year.
DEDUCTIBLE
Not spelled out. Would be determined by None.
individual health plan.
HELP FOR LOW-INCOME ELDERLY
Pays premiums and all other costs for Same, but partial subsidies
individuals with incomes less than 135 available for people with
percent of the poverty line--that is, incomes up to 150 percent
$11,300 or couples with incomes less than of the poverty level.
$15,200. Partial subsidies for people
with incomes up to 175 percent of the
poverty level.
WHEN BENEFITS WOULD START
Help for low-income people and 2002.
catastrophic coverage would be
administered by states, starting next
year. Premium subsidies for other people
and broader Medicare reforms to make the
program rely more heavily on private HMOs
would start in 2004.
COST
$158 billion by 2010...................... $253 billion by 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the comparison shows pretty conclusively
that you get more benefits under the $158 billion plan than you do
under the $253 billion plan. The $158 billion plan goes into effect
right away. The other one does not go into effect until 2002, and
people have to pay, under the Democrat plan, $600 whether they get any
benefits or not. It is my understanding the $600 has been subtracted
from the $253 billion to make that cost a little bit lower. So it is a
another tax for a proposal that provides for Federal control as opposed
to your control.
HCFA versus your decisions: Talk to your doctors about HCFA and how
it participates and interacts with them. Talk to them about the crisis
that HCFA has already caused in this Nation in medical care and ask
yourself: Do I want to give them the added burden of a prescription
drug plan and only give myself one option? That is what we are looking
at here.
I hope you will do some comparisons and see the difference and
concentrate on this bipartisan solution to providing prescription
drugs. The one thing about the Governor from Texas with which I have
really been impressed has been his ability and effort to work with both
sides in the Texas Legislature. I used to be in the Wyoming
Legislature. I know how important it is for people to work together. It
is a little different atmosphere than we have in Washington.
How did Governor Bush do that when he moved in and had a Democrat
legislature? He sat down with them one on one, face to face, and talked
to them about his priorities and their priorities, and they worked
together. What excites me is following the history of Presidents, they
tend to repeat what they have done successfully before, and I am really
excited about that because I see a Governor coming to Washington and
sitting down with both sides, one on one, face to face--a long process;
there are 535 of us, but it is doable. That is what is needed in
Washington: more effort across the aisle, effort like the Medicare
Commission that has provided a solution for prescription drugs that can
be done. I thank the Chair and yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining under morning
business on the Democratic side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. I want to use those 6 minutes to sum up.
____________________
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I finished speaking, the Senator from
Arizona came to the floor and said it is unseemly that we would be
discussing the Presidential race. The race has been discussed by
Senators on both sides of the aisle, as it should be. There is no more
important decision to be made by the American people than the choice of
the President of the United States, and that choice will determine what
this body considers for the next 4 years.
Frankly, we ought to reflect on what has happened with this
Republican-led Congress. If you take a look at the fact that we are
approaching the Halloween holiday, in that spirit we might consider the
fact that Congress has become ``Sleepy Hollow,'' the final resting
place for priorities of American families.
Take a look at the list of things that have been offered by the
Democratic side but have not been acted upon by the Republican side: A
real Patients' Bill of Rights. When you go to a doctor, who should make
the decision; a doctor or insurance company clerk? That is an easy
choice for me. I want the doctor to make the call. When we tried to
pass that bill in the Senate, the Republicans defeated us.
Prescription drug coverage under Medicare: Not one of these
convoluted schemes we just heard described that would somehow give
prescription drugs to the States for 4 years, take it back, give it to
the insurance companies--we know how it should work. Medicare has been
on the books for 35 years. It is proven. It is universal.
Frankly, we think all seniors and disabled in that category should be
able to make the choice themselves, voluntarily, whether or not they
want the benefit under Medicare. The Republicans do not care for
Medicare. They called it socialized medicine when the Democrats
proposed it and, frankly, they are still criticizing it, doing little
to help that system.
Most Americans know how valuable Medicare has been to their families.
We think a prescription drug benefit under Medicare should be the law.
The Republicans and pharmaceutical interests have stopped us.
[[Page 24225]]
We also believe in an increase in the minimum wage. Ten million
Americans went to work this morning for $5.15 an hour, and they are not
just kids in their first jobs. Over half of them are women and many of
them are raising children and trying to eke out a living at $5.15 an
hour. We used to give them a periodic increase in the minimum wage
without even debate, but the Republicans now think this is
unacceptable; that we cannot give a minimum wage increase without
lording billions of dollars in tax breaks on businesses. For goodness'
sake, give these people--400,000 of them in Illinois--an increase in
the minimum wage of at least 50 cents an hour for the next 2 years.
That bill has not passed, and the Republican Congress has had ample
opportunity to address it.
We believe on the Democratic side we need tax cuts; use the surplus
for tax cuts for families for the deductibility of college education
expenses. That is a concern I hear from families as soon as the baby is
born. How are we going to pay for this kid's education? When you see
the cost of education going up over a 20-year period of time, from the
time that child was born until they will be in school--it goes up 200
percent, 400 percent--people ask: How can we possibly do this?
On the Democratic side, we want to give the families deductibility of
tuition and fees to help them pay for college. The Republicans oppose
it. We support it. That is the difference. When we offered it, they
stopped us.
Also, we are talking about education funds to improve our Nation's
schools, to reduce class size. This does not take a Ph.D. in education
to understand. If you were a teacher, would you rather walk in on the
first day and see a classroom with 30 kids or 15 kids? Are you more
likely able to help a struggling student if there are 15 children in
the classroom or 30? It is not rocket science. It does not take a Ph.D.
We on the Democratic side believe reducing class size is the first
step to helping kids from falling behind and helping those better
students get a little more attention.
We also believe we ought to be supporting afterschool programs for
students. Letting kids go now at 3 o'clock is just a gamble because
very few of them have parents at home. They do not have Ozzie and
Harriet waiting with cookies and milk anymore. They are by themselves.
Some do pretty well, but a lot of them do not. We think afterschool
programs, supervised, so kids have a chance to maybe catch up on their
school subjects, maybe appreciate the arts a little more, maybe become
better on a computer, or even just play some basketball, makes some
sense as long as there is supervision. We support afterschool programs
and fought the Republicans every step of the way trying to put this
valuable money back into education.
We also believe in commonsense gun safety legislation. The No. 1
story in 1999 in the news was the Columbine tragedy. What has America
done to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals? Congress
has done nothing. Nothing.
The National Rifle Association and its leader, ``Mr. Moses,'' have
decided we are not going to do anything to keep guns out of the hands
of children and criminals, and that is criminal. The Republican-led
Congress should be held accountable for that.
If you have an aging parent or grandparent, the Democrats believe you
should have a tax break to help pay for their care.
How many folks and families do you know worried about that aging
parent and how their last years are going to be? They need a helping
hand. We support it, as we support increased targeted tax cuts to help
people pay for day care, so kids can be left in a healthy, safe
environment and families can afford to pay for it. Stay-at-home moms,
who sacrifice for their kids, should get a tax break, too. They are
making a sacrifice that will enhance that child's future. We should
invest in them as well.
When it comes to these myriad issues I have just given you, these are
the issues with which working families, middle-income families, and
single people as well can identify. Yet we have had no help whatsoever
on the Republican side of the aisle. The Republican Congress has failed
to address the basic issues of education and health care, taxes that
are reduced and targeted tax cuts and credits for families who really
need them, prescription drug coverage under Medicare, and a Patients'
Bill of Rights.
We came to this Congress with all kinds of lofty goals. We are
leaving now, unfortunately, with appropriations bills as large as the
Washington, DC, telephone book, scarcely read, that serve too many
special interests and too few families across this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Senate recessed until 2:13 p.m.;
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding
Officer (Mr. Allard).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for not
more than 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVACY LEGISLATION
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we live in a period of unprecedented
prosperity and opportunity.
We can go more places than ever before. We are living longer and
healthier lives than ever before. We are employed in jobs today that
were unthinkable just a few years ago.
Our lives have changed dramatically because of computers, the
Internet and technology.
But with all the good that comes with technology, there are elements
that cause us concern. One such concern that has captured our attention
is the issue of privacy.
As more of us use the Internet to shop and conduct business, more of
our personal information is being spread throughout the web. That
information, in many instances, is used properly and in a way that is
good for consumers. But as in any field, there are those who abuse the
public trust by using this personal information in unethical ways.
Because of concerns about consumer privacy, the Senate has considered
how we might do better at protecting consumers while not unwittingly
turning off the Internet engine that is such a key part of the economic
prosperity we currently enjoy.
The Senate Commerce Committee recently held its third hearing this
year on the privacy of information gathered from consumers who use the
Internet. Since the Federal Trade Commission recommended legislation in
this area earlier this session, I, and I believe a substantial number
of my colleagues, have come to agree that we must act on this issue in
the not-too-distant-future.
I have come to believe that Federal legislation is needed to protect
consumers. I don't think that the current voluntary privacy policies
are sufficient. Consumers who use the Internet should be given more
information about what data is being gathered about them, and they
should be given greater control over how this data is used.
I have also come to believe that Federal legislation is needed to
protect and improve Internet commerce which, of course, benefits
consumers and businesses alike. Not only will the assurance of
adequate, enforceable privacy standards increase consumers' comfort
with on-line transactions, but the possibility of States acting to
protect consumers in the absence of a Federal law
[[Page 24226]]
threatens to create a patchwork of conflicting privacy mandates that
could be hard to apply to a medium that does not recognize State
borders.
Though I know that I support Federal legislation regarding the on-
line collection and use of consumer information, I confess to not
knowing at this time exactly what should be legislated. At the last
hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee we considered three different
bills, and additional, and more varied, bills have been introduced in
the House of Representatives. I don't know which of these approaches or
combination of approaches will best protect consumers without making
on- line transactions overly burdensome. On-line merchants, providers
of both goods and services, have touted the benefits to consumers of
using the Internet to gather information that facilitates targeted
marketing. This could very well be the case but I want to know that
consumers are informed of and agree with these marketing practices.
Determining more specifically what consumers want from privacy
legislation is something that I hope we can do in the next session of
Congress.
While much, through certainly not all, of the discussion in Congress
about privacy is focused on the issue of the on-line collection and use
of consumer information, I think it is also important that Congress
remain cognizant of the fact that ``privacy'' as it relates to the
Internet is a far broader and more complex issue. For all of its
salutary effects, the ease with which the Internet allows for the
compilation and sharing of private information gathered in the physical
world, information about financial transactions, medical histories,
reading habits, eating habits, sleeping habits, information about
almost every aspect of one's life raises legitimate concerns that
Congress should and will continue to address.
The privacy of medical information, which can be intensely personal,
is one such issue about which Congress must remain vigilant. Improved
technology along with changes in health care delivery, billing systems,
information gathering and genetic testing all increase the number of
people who have access to health records. Americans should know that
personally identifiable health information is private and they should
have control over who has access to it. At the same time our challenge
is to find a way to balance legitimate needs for health care
information--for example, medical research--and individual privacy
rights.
Future Congresses will adopt additional health care reforms. We
clearly need to improve our Nation's health care system. Although most
Americans are satisfied with their health care, most Americans are also
concerned about those in our country who have inadequate health care
and no hope of improving their situation. I support reforms that
improve access to quality health care for those who have none, that
keep intact our wonderful system of hospitals and clinics in all areas
of our country and that provide people with meaningful choices.
When future Congresses address this area, one issue I will watch most
carefully is the amount of health care information that is provided to
the Government, and how this information is used. We must be careful
not to adopt measures that give Government regulators the ability to
peek into people's private medical records. A few years ago, my home
State of Washington embarked on several health care reforms. Most of
these reforms were in the wrong direction. Our legislature adopted
reforms that put the government in charge of health care decisions for
people and gave a government commission the ability to cancel private
health insurance coverage in our state.
I found both of those moves bothersome, but our legislature didn't
stop at just controlling health care decisions for our citizens. No,
our legislature took one additional chilling step. It decided that if
the government was providing health care, as well as dictating which
private health plans could remain in business, the government should
have access to personal, private medical records.
That is going way too far, and fortunately, the good people of
Washington made sure that radical change was not placed into the law.
Over the next year, I am convinced that Congress will adopt
meaningful health care reforms that help people, but as we do that, I
must constantly advise my colleagues to follow the ``do no harm'' rules
of medicine and not fall prey to those who believe that government-run
health care, along with all that it brings, is the right solution to
this challenge.
No matter the type of information in question--consumer or medical--
Americans have the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Thoughtful legislative action is needed at the federal level to address
the legitimate concerns many Americans currently have in this regard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
THE UNITED STATES AND NATO
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, there has been an effort in recent days
to score partisan political points by misrepresenting Governor Bush's
commitment to NATO and southeast Europe. Unfortunately, some of my
Senate colleagues have been involved in this effort.
No one in the Senate has been more involved in our policy toward
southeast Europe, and no one cares more than I do about that part of
the world. I have traveled to the region three times this year--on a
factfinding mission, to participate in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly,
and to participate in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. I have been to
Kosovo twice and visited with troops.
I have been involved in efforts to bring about alternative leadership
in Serbia--something that has finally happened. I have been a leader on
the Stability Pact with the belief that its successful implementation
is crucial to the long-term stability, prosperity, and peace in the
region. I have also constantly watched the situation in Kosovo,
outraged at the ongoing ethnic cleansing going on there today.
With this background and involvement, I can say definitely that
Governor Bush understands the importance of the region to our national
security interests.
I think it is important that we set the record straight. Governor
Bush has said that he would systematically review our military
commitments internationally upon his inauguration. He will look at them
across the world. This will include a review of our deployments in the
Balkans. He has said that he will work with our allies to develop a
strategy to remove our troops from the region when it is possible to do
so without threatening peace and stability in the region or our
relationship with our European allies. He understands the important
relationship we have with our NATO allies.
There never was and never will be any statement by Governor Bush or,
if he is elected, President Bush, regarding a reduced commitment to
NATO. He understands how important NATO is.
Vice President Gore has joined Governor Bush in saying that we should
pull out of the Balkans when we are no longer needed.
Governor Bush is committed to political stability and security in the
Balkans. He emphasized this point repeatedly--that stability in
southeast Europe is vital to Europe and hence to the U.S. In other
words, we have strategic interests in southeast Europe, which are
important to Europe and to the security of the U.S. and, for that
matter, peace in the world. So Governor Bush is committed to political
stability.
Without the Governor's involvement in the Byrd-Warner debate on our
troop commitment to Kosovo, the next President would be facing a July 1
deadline to decide whether to stay or go. Governor Bush stood up and
was counted at the time of the Byrd-Warner discussion in the Senate. He
demonstrated leadership at a time when leaders from both parties were
considering having the U.S. unilaterally withdraw from a NATO
commitment. That was a very
[[Page 24227]]
important thing that he did at that time, because if he had not stood
up and said he thought it was overreach, we would have lost that on the
floor of the Senate and would have done irreparable damage to our
relationship with NATO.
We must remember that the Clinton-Gore administration promised the
American people in 1995 that our troops would not be in Bosnia for
longer than a year. That promise was never kept. Rather than set a
misguided deadline, Governor Bush is simply saying we should not, and
will not, be in the Balkans forever. Nothing more.
Governor Bush has said time and again that he would actively consult
our European allies in the formation and implementation of our policies
in NATO and in southeast Europe. I hope Lord Robertson, who heads up
NATO, understands that. I made that very clear when I was at the NATO
Assembly in Budapest. We understand how important our leadership and
our commitment is to NATO.
Governor Bush is an internationalist who is committed to NATO and our
European allies.
These attacks are just partisan politics designed, in my opinion, to
turn attention from a growing scandal involving Vice President Gore.
Just this morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a
hearing to examine Vice President Gore's dealings with former Russian
Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin regarding weapons sales to Iran. It
has been widely reported that the Vice President failed to fully and
properly inform relevant congressional oversight committees regarding
agreements reached with Russian officials. He has to be more
forthcoming about what went on there.
The hearing was in response to new and critical information on this
matter which surfaced in the New York Times report dated October 13.
Governor Bush remains fully committed to NATO and American leadership
in Europe. Repeating, he remains fully committed to NATO and American
leadership in Europe.
He understands our unique role and is committed to maintaining that
leadership. We know how important our leadership is to NATO. We
certainly found that out during the Kosovo-Serbian war that we had. To
suggest that he doesn't understand is just plain hogwash.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
____________________
THE FAILURES OF THIS CONGRESS
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over the period of the past weeks and
months, as the ranking member of our Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee, I have tried to point out the failing of this
Congress and the fact that we have not addressed reauthorization of the
elementary and secondary education bill, which we are charged to do--we
had 22 days of hearings and we had a markup and legislation was
reported out of our committee.
It has been several months since that legislation was on the floor
and then withdrawn by the majority leader. In spite of the efforts of
many of us to bring that measure back on the floor of the Senate, we
have been unable to do so. We think it is enormously important that we
have an opportunity to do so.
We are now some 3 weeks after the date that was suggested that we
move into the adjournment for this Congress, and we have seen days go
by, quorum calls held, and still no action. Now pending before the
committee, we have the bankruptcy legislation, which is going to
benefit in a substantial way the credit card industry. But we are not
having the opportunity to address the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, which can benefit families all across this country, with
support for State and local communities.
This issue, I think, is back before the Senate because, during the
period of our national debate between the Vice President and Governor
Bush, great attention has been given to the issues of education.
Assurances were given to the American people representing the different
positions of the candidates. We have pointed out--I did last week--some
of the realities and some of the facts about what is happening in our
public schools across this country. And also I pointed out the fact
that Texas has not been keeping up with the rest of the country on
objective tests. That was challenged by some colleagues on the other
side of the aisle. Now we have the Rand Corporation--virtually a
nonpartisan organization--which has done a very careful review of the
Texas experience, and they agree with us and, in effect, agree with
Vice President Gore on the issues of education.
I am glad we are getting some clarification. We only have 2 weeks
left in this campaign, but I am glad we are beginning to get some
clarification on this issue. First of all, I remind our colleagues
about what assurances were given to the American people about the
commitment of our majority leader on the issues of elementary and
secondary education. We only provide some 7 cents out of every dollar
that goes into the local communities. States have the primary
responsibility. Nonetheless, we can give some focus and attention to
programs that have demonstrated positive results in terms of academic
achievement and accomplishment. That really is the purpose for which
these resources are out there, and also to give special emphasis to the
most economically disadvantaged children in this country so they are
not going to be left out or left behind.
We come to this debate and discussion looking over the period of
recent years. We wonder whether the positions that have been accepted
by the Republican leadership are very much in conflict with the age-old
positions of the Republican Party with regard to education, where they
believe there should not be a role for any Federal aid to education. We
had that debate in the early sixties. We have had it many times since
then.
Nonetheless, we have seen in the early 1990s when the Republican
leadership assumed control of the Senate the first order of business
for them was a massive rescission of moneys that had been appropriated
and were going to be allocated to school districts that would have
provided help and assistance to needy schools across the country.
That money had been appropriated by the House and Senate and agreed
to by the conference, signed by the President of the United States. One
of the first orders of business by the Republican leadership was to
rescind that money. We saw a rescission of about $2 billion. The
initial request was considerably higher. It was reduced, but we had the
rescission.
Then in the 1990s we faced the onslaught of our Republican leadership
who wanted to abolish the Department of Education. I think most Members
and most parents across the country believe that when the President of
the United States sits down with the Members at the White House, we
want someone sitting at the President's elbow when there is a
discussion and debate about domestic priorities in the United States,
someone who is always going to say: What about education? What about
education, Mr. President?
Those voices are there, appropriately so, in terms of the security
interests of the United States and defense, for the foreign policy of
the United States, the Secretary of State. We have them there with
regard to housing. We have them there in terms of the environment. We
have them there in terms of commerce and transportation. Many Members
believe we should have them there with regard to the issues of
education.
That was not the position of the Republican leadership. They said:
No, we don't want to have that there. They tried unsuccessfully to
eliminate the Department of Education. Nonetheless, we find the
Department is there. It is considerably downsized. It has had an
extraordinary record, with great improvement over the previous
Republican Secretaries of Education in collecting the debts that are
owed to the Department. They have reduced the student loan default rate
from 22.4% in 1992 to 6.9% in 2000. Both the guaranteed and student
loan collections have been much more efficient.
Now there is a different attitude by the new Republican leadership.
It is expressed by the Republican leader himself, going back to January
of 1999:
[[Page 24228]]
Education is going to be a central issue this year. . . .
For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
January 29, 1999:
But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's
not going to be just words. . . .
June 22, 1999:
Education is number one on the agenda for the Republicans
in Congress this year. . . .
Chamber of Commerce, February 1, 2000:
We're going to work very hard on education. I have
emphasized that every year I've been majority leader . . .
and Republicans are committed to doing that.
February 3, 2000:
We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. . . . Education will be a high priority in this
Congress.
May 1, 2000:
This is very important legislation. I hope we can debate it
seriously and have amendments in the education area. Let's
talk education.
May 2, 2000:
Question: . . . have you scheduled a cloture vote on that?
Senator Lott: No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . .
But education is number one in the minds of the American
people all across this country and every State, including my
own State.
July 10:
I, too, would very much like to see us complete the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
July 25, 2000:
We will keep trying to find a way to go back to this
legislation this year and get it completed.
The fact is, for the first time in 35 years we do not have a
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is
against the background, Mr. President, of what is happening out there
across this country and what young children are doing.
We have challenges in our education system. Here is a chart: ``More
Students are Taking the SAT.'' That test, by and large, is necessary to
gain entrance into the colleges; not virtually unanimous, but by and
large it is required. Look at what has happened since 1980, when 33
percent of the children took it: 36 percent in 1985; 40 percent in
1990; 42 percent in 1995; and now in 2000, it is 44 percent.
This is a reflection of the attitude of children in our high schools.
The percentage of children taking the SATs is going up significantly.
The children want to take those tests. They understand the significance
of the SAT and the importance of a college education. The SAT test is
demanding. It is hard. It is difficult. Children have to work extremely
long hours to prepare for these SATs. The increasing numbers of
students taking the SAT is a clear indication from the children of this
country that they are serious about education and they want to be able
to try to improve their academic achievement.
Not only do we see their willingness to take the most strenuous of
tests, which are the SATs, but they are also willing to take the
advanced courses in math and science, probably the most difficult
courses in our high school.
We see what has been happening in precalculus: In 1990, 31 percent of
students enrolled in precalculus; in 2000, 44 percent did. In calculus,
the rate increased from 19 percent to 24 percent. In physics, 44
percent to 49 percent. These are the percentage increases of students
who are taking the advanced courses in these subject matters--all on
the rise. The number of children who are taking the SAT tests is on the
rise.
Let's take a look at the results. We have now more children taking
the SAT tests. They are taking more demanding courses. What have been
the results? We see across the board, going back from 1972 and 1975,
1980, the constant downward movement in terms of results. What we have
been seeing since 1990 is the gradual, slow--and I admit it has been
slow, but it is going in one direction, and that is up. There has been
an improvement in SAT math scores and they are now the highest in 30
years. More kids are taking them, more kids are doing better. That is
true across the board in terms of males as well as females.
We have challenges in our education system. This is a reflection on
what is happening generally across the country. These are the matters
the Vice President has talked about, how he wants to strengthen those.
Now we see what has been happening in the State of Texas. We saw what
is happening generally across the country, that all the indicators are
going up. Here we have Texas, falling far below the national average on
the SAT scores from 1997 to the year 2000.
I brought this up to the Senate floor last week, and a lot of my
colleagues were dismissive. But let's look at this. This is the
national test, the SAT. These are not homegrown tests in Texas and
homegrown tests in Massachusetts, homegrown in other States. The SAT is
a national standardized test. I will come back to that in a minute.
These are the national averages for the SAT test. Notice the national
average total scores since 1997 has gone up. That, I think, is a clear
indication that the children, working harder, taking more challenging
courses, have a greater desire, more of them, to go on to the schools
and colleges. It is a very definite upward swing, although not great in
terms of the total numbers. All of us want these higher. However, the
fact remains that progress has been made and the national average is
going up.
But not, Mr. President, in the State of Texas. From 1999 to the year
2000, we have seen it flatten out. Going back to 1997, scores have
declined; Texas scores have gone down. It is also interesting that
Texas scores are well below the national average in the SATs.
I think this is a pretty fair indication about the facts in the State
of Texas. With all respect, I am not getting into criticizing the
Governor or commenting on his desire to try to do better. But I do
think that when he talks about it and he claims how well Texas is
doing, it is fair enough to look at the facts and examine whether this
is so. We have this as a result of these Scholastic Aptitude Tests that
show Texas is well below the national average, and under Governor Bush
it hasn't improved on the national average in the last several years,
at least while he has been Governor.
These are the earlier facts. Then we have the blockbuster report, the
Rand Commission report, which basically sustains that argument that the
schools may not have been making as large of improvements as claimed.
It has been an important indictment of what has been happening on
education in the State of Texas.
Mr. REID. Could I ask the Senator from Massachusetts to yield while
we do a unanimous-consent request, and the Senator as part of the
request would retain the floor?
Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 4811
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask consent that following statements
by Senator Kennedy and Senator Baucus ongoing now, the Senate proceed
to the conference report to accompany the foreign operations
appropriations bill, that it be considered as having been read, and
time be limited to the following: 1 hour equally divided between
Senators McConnell and Leahy or their designees, 10 minutes equally
divided between myself and Senator Byrd or our designees, and 30
minutes under the control of Senator Graham of Florida. I further ask
unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the
Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report without
any intervening action.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my
understanding there is already scheduled a 4:30 vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. If this debate is not completed prior to that time, we will
have to complete it after that vote is taken?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. That is my understanding, too.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
____________________
[[Page 24229]]
EDUCATION TEST SCORES
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was just pointing out that we have this
extraordinary report. I have it in my hand. It is the October 24, 2000
Rand Commission report: What do test scores in Texas tell us? It is an
excellent report. I will have excerpts of it printed in the Record. But
I hope those who are interested in this issue, trying to make up your
minds over the period of these last 10 days, will have a good
opportunity to examine that report.
Let me just mention a few of the highlights of the report. First of
all, the study was released, as I mentioned, on October 24. It raises
serious questions about the validity of gains in Texas math and reading
stores. The study compares the results of the Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills, the test taken by Texas students, with the results
achieved by those same students on the National Assessment of Education
Progress tests. There were large discrepancies between the results of
the Texas TAAS test and the national NAEP test. The student gains on
the TAAS, the Texas test, are far greater than what has been found with
the same group of students on the NAEP or other standardized national
tests.
Do we understand what we are saying? Significant improvement on the
test just given to Texas students; but for the Texas students who took
both the Texas and national test, we found a very dramatic disparity.
In Texas, many teachers say they are spending especially--these are the
conclusions of the Rand report--large amounts of class time on TAAS
test preparation activities. Teachers in low-performing schools
reported greater frequency of test preparation than did teachers in
higher-performing schools. While this preparation may improve the TAAS
scores, it may not help students develop necessary reading and math
skills. Also, this could lead to a superficial appearance that the gap
between minority and majority students is narrowing when no change has
actually occurred.
The exclusion of students with disabilities increased in Texas while
decreasing in the Nation. Texas also showed an increase over time in
the percentage of students dropping out of school and being held back.
These factors produce a gain in average test scores that overestimates
actual improvement in student performance.
We understand now what is happening. Regarding those individuals with
disabilities, students we have worked long and hard to make sure they
are going to be a part of the student body and have the opportunities
for educational advancement, if you can exclude some of them from test
taking, as in Texas, plus most likely some of the poorer performing
students have dropped out and won't be able to take any of those
assessment tests, this is going to have an artificial inflator on test
scores.
That is the Rand Corporation that is making that conclusion.
Also, Rand researchers hypothesize that a small but significant
percentage of students may have topped out on the TAAS. In other words,
some students may have scored as high as the TAAS would allow them to.
If that happened, it would artificially narrow the gap on TAAS between
white students and students of color because white students tend to
earn higher scores than minority students. Thus, the reduced gap on the
TAAS relative to NAEP may be a result of TAAS being too easy for some
students.
As with other tests, there have been documented cases of cheating on
the Texas TAAS test.
The NAEP is a national test, which students from around the country
can take so States and communities--and parents, most importantly--are
able to evaluate the differences between how their children are doing
in school compared with how those in other parts of the State and other
parts of the country are doing. According to the NAEP, Texas fourth
graders were slightly more proficient in reading in 1998 than in 1994.
However, the country as a whole also improved to the same degree. Thus,
there was nothing remarkable about the reading score gains in Texas.
Small improvements in Texas eighth grade math scores were also
consistent with those observed nationally.
There is nothing remarkable about the NAEP scores in Texas, and
students of color did not gain more than whites. Score increases in
Texas are identical to those nationwide when using the NAEP data.
However, the gains on TAAS were several times larger than they were on
NAEP.
That is what we are hearing the good Governor talking about. That is
what he is talking about. This puts it all in the light that that is
not a true reflection of what is happening among the young people. The
gains on TAAS were greater for students of color than they were for
whites. The large discrepancy between the TAAS and the NAEP results
raises concern about the validity of the TAAS scores and validity of
claims regarding student achievement.
According to the NAEP results, the gap between white students and
students of color in Texas is very large and also increasing slightly.
In 1998, the average fourth grade reading score for black students
was at the 38th percentile compared to the average white student at the
67th percentile. This gap was slightly larger than the gap between
these groups in 1994. In other words, the black-white reading gap
increased during this 4-year period. The gap between the blacks and
whites had actually increased during this period.
In fourth grade math, the white-Hispanic NAEP gap grew in Texas but
not nationally, and the white-black gap remained constant in Texas but
actually shrank nationally. In short, the gap sizes between the whites
and minorities on the NAEP were improving nationally but getting worse
in Texas.
That is not a satisfactory prescription for improving education. It
suggests the Texas system is more an education mirage than an education
miracle. I think it is important for parents--as they are looking now,
trying to get beyond the cliches, beyond the slogans, beyond the set
statements, beyond the give and take, even in those debates--to look at
the record, and the record is very clear. That is that we have not seen
the kind of advancement that has taken place in many other States that
are doing a number of things that have been recommended, as we were
going to have a chance to hear about in the debate on the ESEA.
We find out the States that made the greatest advancement are States
that had smaller class sizes, where they had continuing enhancement and
proficiency for teacher education, mentoring with teachers, afterschool
programs, accountability. They had a number of those programs and even
benefited from early education help and assistance as well.
What we wanted to try to do is to have a debate on those particular
matters that have made a difference in States around the country, where
we had seen advancements in education. But we have been denied that
opportunity. What basically the leadership, the Republican leadership,
has denied us is the opportunity to have that debate, denied us the
opportunity to raise these issues. What the American people are being
asked is, let's just look back on what has happened in Texas.
When we examine Texas, not out of partisanship, but using the
objective standards for the SATs--they do not benefit a Democrat or
Republican; they are focused on children--and if we take the Rand study
which has been available and can be reviewed by anyone--we are finding
out that this has been a mirage in terms of education.
I want to spend a few moments going into another area which I think
the American people ought to give some focus and attention to in these
final few days, and that is on the critical issue of the credibility
gap in health care. Few, if any, issues are of greater concern to
American families than quality, affordable health care. Americans want
an end to the HMO abuses.
[[Page 24230]]
They want good health insurance coverage, they want a prescription drug
benefit for senior citizens under Medicare, and they want to preserve
and strengthen Medicare so it will be there for today's and tomorrow's
senior citizens. And they want these priorities not only for themselves
and their loved ones but for every American, because they know that
good health care should be a basic right for all.
The choice in this election year is clear. It is not just a choice
between different programs. It is a choice based on who can be trusted
to do the right thing for the American people. Al Gore's record is
clear. He has been deeply involved in health care throughout his
career. The current administration has made significant progress in
improving health care in a variety of ways--from expanding health
insurance to protecting Medicare. He has consistently stood for
patients and against powerful special interests.
Al Gore lays out a constructive and solid program that is consistent
with his solid record. He is for expanding insurance coverage to all
Americans, starting with children and their parents. He is for a strong
Patients' Bill of Rights. I daresay, when Al Gore is elected President,
a Patients' Bill of Rights will be the first major piece of legislation
that passes this Congress. I am absolutely convinced that will be the
case, Mr. President.
He has a sensible plan for adding prescription drug coverage to
Medicare. He will fight to preserve Medicare without unacceptable
changes designed to undermine Medicare and force senior citizens into
HMOs and private insurance plans.
George W. Bush's approach is very different. His proposals are deeply
flawed. But even worse than the specifics of his proposals is his
failure to come clean with the American people about his record in
Texas or about his own proposals.
On health care, George W. Bush does not just have a credibility gap.
He has a credibility chasm. He has consistently stood with the powerful
against the people. He refuses to take on the drug companies, the
insurance companies, or the HMOs. His budget plan puts tax cuts for the
wealthy ahead of every other priority, and leaves no room for needed
investments in American families. His health care values are not the
values of the American people.
On the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights, George Bush said in the
third debate that he did support a Patients' Bill of Rights. He said he
wanted all people covered. He said he was in favor of a patient's right
to sue, as provided under the Texas law. And he said he brought
Republicans and Democrats together in the State of Texas to pass a
Patients' Bill of Rights. That is what he said. But the reality is very
different, as was pointed out in the New York Times after the debate on
October 18. ``Texas record: Taking credit for patients' rights where it
is not necessarily due.''
That is the understatement of the year. The reality is George W. Bush
vetoed the first Patients' Bill of Rights passed in Texas. He fought to
make the second bill as narrow and limited as possible. He was so
opposed to the provision allowing patients to sue their HMOs that he
refused to sign the final bill, allowing it to become law without his
signature.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Briefly for a question, and then I would like to make a
presentation, and then I will be glad to yield.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am very concerned about what I see
as attacks on my State of Texas on the Senate floor. I certainly think
it is legitimate to have a Presidential campaign out in the light of
day where people can see it. I just ask the question: Is the Patients'
Bill of Rights the Senator is referring to the law today in Texas?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, it is law.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Does the Senator think it would be law in Texas today
if the Governor had not allowed it to become law?
Mr. KENNEDY. I think another Governor would have gotten the bill
faster. If the Senator----
Mrs. HUTCHISON. The question is, Is it law today?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to reclaim my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts reclaims his
time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask if the Senator will give me some time to rebut
what I consider to be an attack on my State.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield to the Senator after I spell out
exactly what happened in Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, then I ask unanimous consent that I
have some time before we go to the foreign ops bill. I ask unanimous
consent that I get up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will lay out the facts--and if I can
have the attention of the Senator from Texas now--I will lay these
facts out, and if the Senator from Texas finds a problem with these
facts, then I will be glad to yield for that purpose to listen to what
the facts are.
These are what the facts are: George Bush said in the third debate
that he did support a national Patients' Bill of Rights.
He said he wanted all people covered.
He said that he was in favor of a patient's right to sue as provided
under Texas law.
He said he brought Republicans and Democrats together in the State of
Texas to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is what he said.
The reality is different. The Governor vetoed the first Patients'
Bill of Rights passed in Texas. He fought to make the second bill as
narrow and limited as possible. He was so opposed to the provision
allowing patients to sue their HMOs that he refused to sign the final
bill and allowed it to become law without his signature. That is not
the record of a person who is candid about where he stands and what he
has done. Those are the facts.
It is not a record that recommends him for national office for any
citizen concerned about a strong, effective Patients' Bill of Rights.
It is the record of a candidate who stands with powerful insurance
companies and HMOs, not with American families. He was forced
effectively to take a Patients' Bill of Rights. So when the Senator
says, isn't it law today? yes, but it was required because of what
happened in the legislature, not the leadership that was provided by
the Governor on that issue.
On health insurance, the record is equally clear--and equally bleak.
Governor Bush claims he wants insurance for all Americans. He blames
Vice President Gore for the growth in the number of the uninsured. But
Governor Bush's record in Texas is one of the worst in the country.
Texas has the second highest proportion of uninsured Americans in the
country. It has the second highest proportion of uninsured children in
the country. Yet Governor Bush has not only done nothing to address
this problem, he has actually fought against the solutions.
In Texas, he placed a higher priority on large new tax breaks for the
oil industry, instead of good health care for children and their
families. When Congress passed the Children's Health Insurance Program
in 1997, we put affordable health insurance for children within the
reach of every moderate and low-income working family. But George
Bush's Texas was one of the last in the country to fully implement the
law.
Do we understand that? Texas was one of the last States in the
country to fully implement the law. Despite the serious health problems
faced by children in Texas, Governor Bush actually fought to keep
eligibility as narrow as possible.
This is what happened in 1994: The Governor takes office; Texas ranks
49th. The year 2000: Bush runs for President; Texas ranks 49th.
These are the facts. People might not like those facts. People might
not want to talk about those facts, but these are the facts. If you
have different facts, let's have them.
[[Page 24231]]
Texas: One of the last States to implement CHIP. October 1997, CHIP
funds were available. November 1999, Texas implements the full CHIP
program. We had a program where the funds were there. We did not have
to appropriate the additional funds. Still it took 2 years. Children
cannot wait 2 years when they are sick. They cannot wait when they have
a sore throat, or cannot see the blackboard, or cannot see the teacher.
They need help and assistance, and the fact it took 2 years, I think,
is inexcusable.
Bush places a low priority on children. Bush fights to restrict CHIP
eligibility to children below 150 percent of poverty. Most of the other
States, a great majority of the other States, went to 200 percent of
poverty. Maybe the Senator from Texas has an explanation for that.
Texas has been one of the only States that has been cited, not by the
Senator from Massachusetts and not by Democrats, but by a Federal judge
for failure to enroll children in Medicaid. That is the record, Mr.
President. You might not want to hear about it, but that is the record.
Now, perhaps the most ominous revelation about the Governor's
attitude towards this issue came in the third debate when he said:
It's one thing about insurance, that's a Washington term.
Insurance a Washington term? Governor Bush should try telling that to
hard-working families across the country who don't take their children
to the doctor when they have a sore throat or a fever because they
can't afford the medical bill. He should try telling that to the young
family whose hopes for the future are wrecked when a breadwinner dies
or is disabled because an illness was not diagnosed and treated in
time. He should try telling that to the elderly couple whose hopes for
a dignified retirement are swept away in a tidal wave of medical debt.
Insurance is far more than a Washington term. It is a Main Street
term in every community in America, and its lack of availability is a
crisis for millions of families across the country.
Prescription drug coverage under Medicare is another major aspect of
the health care challenge facing America. Few issues are more important
to senior citizens and their families. They deserve a prescription drug
benefit under Medicare. And we should try to provide it in a way that
strengthens the promise of Medicare, not in a way that breaks that
promise and breaks faith with the elderly.
The differences between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush on this
issue are fundamental. Governor Bush stands with the big drug
companies. The Vice President stands with the senior citizens. Governor
Bush has sought at every turn to blur the differences between their two
plans in a way that is so misleading as to make a mockery of his own
attacks on the Vice President's credibility.
Vice President Gore has clearly pointed out the many flaws in
Governor Bush's prescription drug plan for senior citizens. But
Governor Bush has no response on the merits. Instead, he hides behind
phrases like ``fuzzy numbers'' and ``scare tactics.''
But the numbers are not fuzzy, and senior citizens should be
concerned. Let's look at the facts.
Prescription drug coverage under the Bush plan is not immediate and
most senior citizens would be left out.
As the Vice President has pointed out, for the first 4 years, the
Bush plan would cover low-income seniors only. Al Gore cited the
example of a senior citizen named George McKinney. He said:
George McKinney is 70 years old, has high blood pressure.
His wife has heart trouble. They have an income of $25,000 a
year. They cannot pay for their prescription drugs. And so
they're some of the ones that go to Canada regularly in order
to get their prescription drugs.
Governor Bush responded:
Under my plan, the man gets immediate help with
prescription drugs. It's called immediate helping hand.
Instead of squabbling and finger-pointing, he gets immediate
help.
He kept accusing Vice President Gore of using ``fuzzy math'' and
``scare tactics.''
But Governor Bush's own announcement of his Medicare plan proves Al
Gore's point. This is what Governor Bush said:
For four years, during the transition to better Medicare
coverage, we will provide $12 billion a year in direct aid to
low income seniors . . . Every senior with an income less
than $11,300-$15,200 for a couple--will have the entire cost
of their prescription drugs covered. For seniors with incomes
less than $14,600-$19,700 for couples--there will be a
partial subsidy.
George McKinney has an income of $25,000. He would clearly be
ineligible for help under Governor Bush's plan. If Governor Bush thinks
that is fuzzy math, then education reform is even more urgent than any
of us realized.
In the third debate, Governor Bush finally admitted that the first
phase of his program is only for ``poor seniors.''
George McKinney is not alone. The vast majority of senior citizens
would not qualify for Governor Bush's prescription drug plan, and many
of those who did qualify would not participate.
Even this limited program for low-income seniors would not be
immediate, because every State in the country would have to pass new
laws and put the program in place, a process that would take years in
many States.
George Bush's prescription for middle-income seniors is clear--take
an aspirin and call your HMO in 4 years.
Governor Bush's prescription drug plan would also require senior
citizens to go to an HMO or an insurance company to obtain their
coverage. In the first debate, Vice President Gore pointed out that
most senior citizens ``would not get one penny for four to five years,
and then they would be forced to go into an HMO or an insurance company
and ask them for coverage. But there would be no limit on the premiums
or deductibles or any of the terms or conditions.
Again, Governor Bush did not respond to the Vice President's specific
points. Instead, he claimed that the Vice President was trying to
``scare'' voters.
The facts are clear. George W. Bush's policy paper states that:
Each health insurer, including HCFA-sponsored plans that
wish to participate . . . will have to offer an ``expanded''
benefit package, including out-patient prescription drugs. .
. . This will give seniors the opportunity to select the plan
that best fits their health needs.
In other words, to get prescription drug coverage under the Bush
plan, you have to get it through a private insurance plan. How high
will the copayments be? How high will the premiums be? How high will
the deductible be? Governor Bush has no answer. Those important points
are all left up to the private insurance companies.
Governor Bush says senior citizens will have the opportunity to
select the plan that best meets their health needs. But what they will
really have is the opportunity to select whatever plan private insurers
choose to offer. If it costs too much, senior citizens are out of luck.
If it does not cover the drugs their doctors prescribe, they are out of
luck. The Bush plan is an insurance industry's dream, and a senior
citizen's nightmare.
On prescription drugs, and every other aspect of Medicare, the choice
between the two Presidential candidates is very clear, and it is clear
on every other aspect of health care. The Bush record in Texas is one
of indifference and ineptitude--of putting powerful interests ahead of
ordinary families.
The Bush record in the campaign is one of distortion. The Bush
proposals are at best inadequate and at worst harmful. Tax cuts for the
wealthy are not as important as health care for children and
prescription drugs for seniors. The American people understand that,
but evidently Governor Bush does not.
Al Gore has a career-long record of fighting for good health care for
families, for children, and for senior citizens. The current
administration has a solid record of bipartisan accomplishment, ranging
from protecting the solvency of Medicare to improving health insurance
coverage through the enactment of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill and the
Child Health Insurance Program. Al Gore's program responds to the real
needs of the American people
[[Page 24232]]
with real resources and a detailed action plan.
I am hopeful that every American will examine the records of the two
candidates carefully. On health care, there should be no question as to
which candidate stands with the powerful special interests and which
candidate stands with the American people. The choice is clear.
Governor Bush stands with the powerful, and Al Gore stands with the
people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Texas.
____________________
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to refute everything the
Senator from Massachusetts has said about my State and my Governor.
Mr. President, I think it is legitimate to talk about a person's
record when you are running for President of the United States. But,
Mr. President, I object to the use of the Senate floor to trash my
State of Texas. And I object to a misrepresentation of the record of my
State.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will yield on your time--on the time of the Senator
from Massachusetts, not on my 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has no time.
Mr. KENNEDY. But there is not a time limitation, is there?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is under a time
limitation.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask my response not be charged to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, does the Senator from Texas deny that
Texas is 48th out of 50 States in terms of the total number of
uninsured children? Does she deny that?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I deny that that is the relevant
point. Because, in fact, 41 States are behind in the CHIP program sign-
up because when Congress passed the Children's Health Care Program,
they gave the States 3 years to spend the money. It just happened that
our State meets every other year in the legislature. By the time they
were able to meet and start the CHIP program, the State had had a very
steady influx of children. We are on the way, and 40 other States are
in the same situation.
So I am going to reclaim my time. I would like for the rest of my 15
minutes to start now because I thought the Senator from Massachusetts
was going to ask a question. But I am not going to yield further.
The Senator from Massachusetts has been speaking for quite awhile
about my home State of Texas. If there is more than 15 minutes before
we start the foreign operations bill, I ask unanimous consent to be
able to continue speaking until Senator McConnell comes and have the
full time to refute what I think are misrepresentations of the Texas
record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator should be advised, there is an
agreement to recognize Senator Baucus. But subject to that agreement,
without objection, the Senator may proceed.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that I have up until the time
that the foreign operations bill starts. What is the agreement with
Senator Baucus?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an agreement that Senator Baucus be
recognized with no time limit before the foreign operations bill.
However, the Senator is not here at this point.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak until
I finish.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the State of Texas has just surpassed
New York as the second largest State in America. That didn't happen
because our State wasn't well run. It didn't happen because we have a
sorry education system. It didn't happen because we don't take care of
our children. It happened because we have a great quality of life. We
have a Governor, George W. Bush, who is doing a great job, and we have
a legislature led by our Lieutenant Governor, Rick Perry, and our House
Speaker, Pete Laney. One is a Democrat; one is a Republican. They work
together. That is the way we do things in Texas.
There has been a gross misrepresentation about Texas throughout the
campaign for President and on the Senate floor today. I will tell the
Senate why the State of Texas is in great shape and why it is
absolutely unconscionable to trash Texas in order to get an advantage
in the Presidential race.
Let's take education. Everyone would acknowledge that we have a
problem in the public education system of our country. Our Congress,
the Republicans, and our Governor in Texas have tried to open up our
public education system. Governor Bush has tried to take the problems
we have and put creativity and more State resources into those problems
so that every child will have a chance to reach his or her full
potential in our State of Texas. That is what we have tried to do in
Congress for the entire United States. We have tried to put creativity
into the schools. We have tried to give parents more choices.
Every time we do, however, it is the people on the other side of the
aisle who throw up the roadblocks, who want to have the Federal
Government, from the top down, dictate what the local governments and
the school boards would do all over our country.
If you think that Governor Bush disagrees with that, you are right.
And so do I. He believes in local control. He is very pleased that
Congress is going to put more money into public education, but he wants
the decisions made by the people who know the children and who know
what the children's needs are.
Let me tell you what he has done in Texas. We were very concerned
about the high school dropout rate in Texas. It was especially high in
our Hispanic community. Governor Bush believes, as do I, that if our
young people are dropping out of high school, that is trouble--T-R-O-U-
B-L-E--for all of us. It means those children will not have a chance to
succeed, and it means our society is losing the benefit of a productive
citizen.
Governor Bush said: Let's find out what the problem is. Well, we
found out what the problem is. Many of those young people who are
dropping out of high school can't read very well. So he said: We are
going to attack this so that every child will be able to read at grade
level, so that every child will be able to participate in public
education all the way through the system. So we start testing our
children in Texas in preschool, kindergarten, in the first grade, in
the second grade. And in the third grade, the child must read at grade
level. The child is tested. And if the child cannot pass the test, the
child will not progress to the fourth grade.
That child will be given extra help to learn how to read until that
child can read at grade level. Then that child will go to the fourth
grade. Governor Bush believes that a child is not going to be able to
learn multiplication tables if a child can't read in the third grade.
Governor Bush wants to go back to basics in education. He wants
reading, writing, arithmetic, and history to be the core subjects that
are taught in our schools. That is what he has done in Texas. The test
scores are going up, and especially they are going up among our
minority students. In fact, we have phenomenal increases in the test
scores of our minority students, which is the emphasis we have put in
the program, because we are so hopeful that by starting at that third
grade level, every child will be able to reach his or her full
potential.
Texas is one of two States that has made the greatest recent progress
in education according to the congressionally mandated National
Education Goals Panel. African American fourth graders in Texas ranked
first in the Nation in math. Since 1992, African American fourth
graders in Texas have made the greatest gains in math, and Hispanic
fourth graders have made the second greatest gains.
African American and Hispanic eighth graders in Texas ranked first
[[Page 24233]]
and second in the Nation in writing. Texas eighth graders, as a whole,
ranked fourth in the Nation. Under Governor Bush, the number of
students passing all parts of the State skills test has increased by 51
percent. The number of both minority students and economically
disadvantaged students passing all parts of this test increased by 89
percent.
I think that is a record of which our Governor should be very proud.
We have had problems in our public education system. We have had
children who don't speak English in great numbers in our education
system. We are a border State. We value education. Our Governor was the
first to step up to the line and say we would educate every child in
Texas regardless of whether or not that child was a legal resident of
Texas. The children of illegal immigrants are educated in Texas, and
that is under the leadership of our Governor.
So I think it is very important that we set the record straight
because it is a good record. We take care of our children, and we
believe a strong system of public education is the ticket to success in
our country. We believe Texas is leading the way.
Now the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out that a Federal judge
had said we are not doing enough for the children in the insurance
program that has been a part of Medicaid. I think that is very
interesting because that lawsuit was filed when we had another Governor
in Texas, not Governor Bush. That lawsuit was filed when Ann Richards
was the Governor of Texas. Governor Bush has been in office for 7
years, so that lawsuit has been pending for over 7 years. I wonder what
it was that made Federal Judge William Wayne Justice decide to rule in
the last 6 weeks in that case. I wonder why he waited for over 7 years
to declare that Texas was not meeting its responsibilities.
Furthermore, I wonder why he waited until October 30 to ask for the
report from the State--October 30 of an election year in which our
Governor is running for President. I just ask that question about the
timing.
As a matter of fact, it happens that our State is going to report
that they are doing everything they can to cover every child with
Medicaid and under the CHIP program because 41 States were not able to
meet the 3-year mandate of the CHIP program, for a combination of
reasons. Partly, it was regulations put out by the Federal Government
that our States had to digest before they would be able to go forward
and put the program in place. Our State legislature meets every other
year, as do many other State legislatures. So once they met, they put
the program in place. Texas has been going full steam ahead ever since
that point. Mr. President, 100,000 children are now covered under our
CHIP program; 400,000 are expected to be covered by the end of next
year.
Under Governor Bush, the percentage of Medicaid-eligible children who
get prevention care has doubled from 30 percent to 60 percent. Congress
is going to pass legislation that is going to help all 41 States that
haven't been able to get their programs up completely and running, so
that all of them will be covered and they will have the money they
need, including Texas. So 41 States had to get the program up and going
with legislatures that meet every other year. So the States and the
Federal Government are working together to make sure children are
covered, and our Governor is leading the way.
I want to discuss the Patients' Bill of Rights, which was mentioned
by the Senator from Massachusetts. He acted as if we didn't have a
Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas. We do have a Patients' Bill of
Rights in Texas, and the Governor worked very hard to get that bill
passed. The disagreement between the Governor and some of the people in
the legislature, which was the subject of the negotiation, was how much
the caps on pain and suffering lawsuits would be. The Governor thought
they were too high. He didn't veto the bill; he let it go into law. In
fact, because he did that, it is the basis of the law that eventually
Congress will pass, because it has very clear internal reviews and very
clear external reviews and because those reviews are so comprehensive
and independent, there have been virtually no lawsuits filed, which is
exactly what you want. You want patients to be covered; you want them
to get the care they need. You don't want a bunch of lawsuits in which
the patient is a person forgotten in the process. You want a Patients'
Bill of Rights so that you can get the care and because the internal
and external reviews have been so good, the system is working.
It is law in Texas today because Governor Bush was the leader who
worked to get those internal and external reviews, who worked to have
reasonable caps, who let the bill become law, and who now, I hope, will
lead our country to a Patients' Bill of Rights that will not be a
lawsuit machine but will give patients and their doctors the ability to
make their decisions.
The Senator from Massachusetts said our Governor, in running for the
Presidency, has a prescription drug benefit for our elderly, but he
said it was ``fuzzy.'' It is not fuzzy. He wants a prescription drug
benefit for our elderly people who need it. He wants to do it
immediately. He does not want one person to have to decide between a
necessity in life and a prescription drug. So he is advocating exactly
what we have been trying to do in Congress, which is to get money to
the States immediately to help in a transition until we can have a real
addressing of the issue of prescription drug benefits. He is advocating
an option in Medicare so that every person will have the ability to
have coverage, if that is the option the person in Medicare chooses to
have--prescription drug benefits--something that would operate like
Medicare Part B or Medicare Part C.
I think we should not have to criticize a State in order to make a
point in a Presidential race. I don't think the people of America are
very persuaded, and if Vice President Gore doesn't have anything else
to talk about but the State of Texas, he should not be the leader of
our country because I think most people would like to know what Vice
President Gore and what Governor Bush are planning to do in the future
for our country. I think their platforms are pretty clear. I don't
think you have to say that the State of Texas is backward when we have
one of the best qualities of life of any State in our Nation, and
people are voting with their feet because they are moving to Texas by
choice. Texas is a great place to live. We have wonderful people, and
we have a legislature that operates in a bipartisan way. I don't think
you would hear one of our legislators stand on the floor of the House
or Senate and trash another State in order to make a point, because it
is just not necessary.
We have a system of public education that is improving every day in
Texas. It is under the leadership of Governor Bush that that is
happening. We are covering our children in the CHIP program, and our
outreach is comprehensive. We are trying to do the education efforts
today so that every child who is eligible will know through that
child's parents that they are eligible.
We have a Patients' Bill of Rights that is the leader in the Nation
for patients in our State, with their doctors having control of their
health care. We did it under the leadership of Governor Bush.
Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me say I have been busy all morning
trying to work out our Medicare and Medicaid Improvement Act and work
on finalizing actions so we can, hopefully, finish the business of the
Senate tomorrow or Friday. I have not had an opportunity to come over,
though I understand Senator Kennedy has gone on at great length talking
about Texas.
Let me respond in the following way. There are a lot of States in the
Union I wouldn't want to live in. But I know there are people who love
those States. I am proud when people ask: What State do you represent
in the Senate? I am proud I can say I am a Senator from the greatest
State in the Union. I am a Senator from Texas.
Now, Texas does not need defense against Ted Kennedy. The fact that
Ted Kennedy is not for George Bush for President is a very good reason
to
[[Page 24234]]
vote for George Bush for President. The fact that Ted Kennedy does not
like our Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas is a pretty good indication
we have a good Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas. After all, it was Ted
Kennedy who joined the Clintons in proposing that the Government take
over and run the health care system in America.
I don't have to defend Texas because people vote with their feet. We
have had 321,666 people move from other States to Texas since George
Bush has been Governor. They must think things are pretty good in
Texas. We have created 1.6 million permanent, productive tax-paying
jobs for the future in Texas while George Bush has been Governor. While
America has lost manufacturing jobs, we have gained 100,000
manufacturing jobs in Texas. Come to think of it, wouldn't it be great
if America were a little bit more like Texas?
I quote from the rules of the Senate, rule XIX, clause 3: No Senator
in debate shall refer offensively to any State of the Union.
Now I don't intend to come over and say bad things about
Massachusetts. Some great Americans have come from Massachusetts.
Massachusetts is a great and wonderful State. I don't choose to live
there, but I know the people who live there love it.
It is interesting that we are gaining two congressional seats because
so many people are moving to Texas; Massachusetts keeps losing
congressional seats. But I am not going to come out here and criticize
Massachusetts.
I say to Senator Kennedy and to others: if you want to run for
President, you want to campaign, go out and do it. But I don't think we
ought to turn the floor of the Senate into the fulcrum of that
campaign.
I thank my colleague for coming over. She does a great job in
defending Texas and defending its interests. I am always proud to be
associated with her. Texas doesn't need any defending. But obviously
the rules of the Senate do. I call on my colleagues to abide by the
rules. I don't think we help each other if we try to tear down other
people's States. I think it behooves us to try to build up our own
States--to try to build up our own country. I think when we do that,
the country benefits.
I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to discuss for a moment this
Rand report that has been quoted so many times by Senator Kennedy and
others. It seems there are some people in the Rand organization who
have put something out showing Texas in a bad light in the education
system.
That was not a full study. Rand actually did a full and comprehensive
study. It was released July 25 of this year. I will read a few
highlights of the comprehensive study. The study examined and compared
the results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress Tests
taken between 1990 and 1996 among 44 States. They judged the States
according to State score improvements, raw achievement scores, and
scores comparing students from similar demographic groups.
Results from the Rand study show that math scores in Texas had
improved at twice the rate of the national average. Texas was second
among all States in improved math scores. Texas leads all States in a
comparison of students from similar socioeconomic and family
backgrounds. Texas African Americans and non-Hispanic white fourth
graders ranked first on this test in math in 1996. Texas Hispanic
fourth graders ranked fifth. The study confirms earlier reports that
Texas is one of two States that has made the greatest overall academic
gains in recent years.
The report went on to say one reason why Texas has been so
successful, according to the Rand study, has been the higher percentage
of teachers who are satisfied with their teaching resources. Governor
Bush provided those resources. He wants to do the same thing through
initiatives such as Reading First, at the Federal level, which would
offer training and a curriculum for teaching reading to K-through-12
teachers.
Governor Bush thinks reading is fundamental. I think his mother is
the one who started that when she started the Reading First Program for
America. He believes if a child can read, that child is going to be
able to take the next steps in public education. That is why Governor
Bush put the resources there in Texas. That is why the real Rand study
that was comprehensive showed the great improvement in Texas. That is
why his education plans for America will work because we want no child
to be left behind in Texas or any other State.
I hope the campaign rhetoric doesn't hit the Senate floor again. I am
not going to stand here and I am not going to sit in my office and
listen to anyone else use Texas as a whipping boy, A, because Texas is
a great State; B, we have a great Governor; C, the things that are
being said are misrepresentations; and D, in Texas, where we have been
behind in the past, Governor Bush has said we are going to get ahead.
We are tackling our problems. Every State has problems. I am proud of
the leadership in Texas of our Speaker, Pete Laney and our Lieutenant
Governor, Rick Perry, and our Governor, George Bush, who have worked
together in a bipartisan way to make sure the resources are going into
public education and into our children's health insurance program. It
was our legislative leaders working with Governor Bush who said our
entire State tobacco settlement would go to fund the children's health
insurance program, and they took a huge part of our State tobacco
settlement and put it in a trust fund in which every county in Texas
will participate in perpetuity for the treatment of our indigent health
care patients all over Texas. That was the leadership of our State
legislature, and our Governor. Because they do want quality health care
for all our Texas residents.
Maybe I am a little biased, but I think I come from a very great
State. I think the statistics prove it. I do not want to hear anyone
else say that Texas is not meeting its responsibilities in education,
in health insurance, in patients' rights--because we are a leader. We
are a leader and we want everyone in America to have the quality of
public education that we are building to get in Texas. We want every
child in America to reach his or her full potential. We want every
child to have health insurance coverage. We want every person in Texas
to have quality health care. That is why all of our tobacco settlement
is going for health care or education programs to educate young people
on the hazards of smoking. That is it, that is the entire use of our
tobacco money: to educate young people on the hazards of smoking and
health care for every citizen of Texas who needs it.
I am very proud of our record. I am proud of our Governor and I think
he is the person who can bring these qualities to the United States.
I yield the floor.
____________________
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate on the bill H.R.
4811, ``Making appropriations for foreign operations, export
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year 2001, and
for other purposes,'' having met, have agreed that the House
recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate,
and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree
to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the
part of both Houses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration
of the conference report.
(The report was printed in the House proceedings of the Record of
October 24, 2000.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the conference report
on the foreign operations bill.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the Senate is a half
billion
[[Page 24235]]
dollars below last year's appropriation--the fiscal year 2000 bill was
$15.4 billion--this year we are presenting a $14.9 billion bill. This
includes $14.5 billion in fiscal year 2000 funds plus an additional
$466 million in supplemental funding for debt relief, Southern Africa,
and the Balkans.
Although we are below last year's level, we have managed to
substantially increase key priorities, including providing $865 million
for Ex-Im, a nearly $100 million increase over last year, $1.3 billion
for development assistance, again a $100 million increase, within child
survival we surpassed the request for AIDS funding and provided $315
million. Overall child survival funding was also increased to $963
million. In addition to over $1 billion in supplemental funds for
Colombia, the Narcotics and Law enforcement account was increased by
$20 million over the request to $325 million. For the first time in
years, we managed to increase security assistance. This account is of
real concern to our friends and allies in Central and Eastern Europe.
We exceeded the request and provided $3.545 billion. To respond to
crises from Chechnya to Sierra Leone, we substantially increased
funding both over last year's level and this year's request for
refugees to $700 million. In this account we were able to work out a
compromise that will improve management and oversight of UNHCR while
affording the administration flexibility to respond rapidly to any real
emergency.
Finally, we provided funds for the fiscal year 2001 and the
supplemental request for debt relief. In addition to language on IMF
reforms recommended by Senator Gramm, we have included a number of HIPC
conditions worked out between Senator Helms and Congressman Leach,
representing the authorizing committees. There are a number of policy
provisions which are also important to mention. Within the $675 million
account for Eastern Europe, we have provided up to $100 million for
Serbia. Senator Leahy and I agree that we will never be able to
withdraw troops and help stabilize the Balkans as long as Milosevic and
other criminals responsible for outrageous atrocities across the
Balkans are allowed to go free. No government in the region will have
confidence in Belgrade if the rule of law is not upheld.
The administration lobbied heavily against our arguments that U.S.
support for the new government should come with specific conditions
attached. We thought aid should flow only if the Serb government met
three specific conditions: First, they need to cooperate with the War
Crimes Tribunal. Second, they must take steps to end support for
organizations in the Republic of Srpska which prevent effective
integration of Bosnia Hercegovina. Finally, given Belgrade's vicious
track record, we thought it was important to seek assurances that the
new government will implement policies which respect the rights and
aspirations of minorities and the rule of law. Each of these conditions
was designed to serve our interests in stabilizing the region so that
an exit strategy for U.S. troops can be safely and effectively
executed. The bill modifies this approach and includes an agreement
which will give this administration and the new government in Belgrade
a 5-month window in which assistance can move forward. After that
period, only humanitarian aid and support to local mayors will be
allowed if Belgrade refuses to meet the conditions which I have
outlined.
I must confess my reservations about this approach. I listened to the
arguments for flexibility, but I have little confidence in the
administration's past record of support for the Tribunal and standing
up to Belgrade. I believe that there is no problem in Serbia that will
be made easier by Milosevic's predatory presence. No regional
government will have confidence in Belgrade as long as he is allowed to
go free. It is in their interest and ours to see him turned over for
trial. In the end I agreed to this compromise because funds for Serbia
are made available subject to the committee's notification. If there is
no sign of cooperation or progress on our conditions during the next
five months, the administration should understand that I will put a
hold on funding. This compromise is not a free pass to spend for five
months--Senator Leahy and I will be expecting concrete progress. The
second area of tremendous concern addressed in the bill is Russia's
action in Chechnya. Since launching this war, Moscow has blocked all
humanitarian relief operations or international human rights
investigations from proceeding in Chechnya. While we cannot always
change the views in Moscow, I was extremely disappointed by the
administration refusal to support the U.N. High Commissioner for Human
Rights call for an international investigation. Instead Secretary
Albright testified the administration preferred to allow Moscow to
conduct its own internal investigation. The State Department has also
rejected support for non-government groups providing relief and
preferred instead to work through the Russian government.
To address these problems, we have earmarked $10 million for the more
than 400,000 displaced families in Chechnya and Ingushetia which can
only be provided through NGOs. Aid to the Russian government is also
made contingent upon cooperation with international investigations in
Chechnya. We have also made aid to the Russian Government contingent
upon a certification that Moscow has terminated support for the nuclear
program in Iran. In the past we have withheld 50 percent of the Russian
government funds until this certification is made--this year we have
increased the withholding to 60 percent. Putin has said Russia must
build a dictatorship of law--what remains unclear is whether his
personal emphasis will be on dictatorship or law. I think our aid
should be leverage to secure a result which serves American interests
and nuclear armed Iran certainly is not in U.S. interests.
Finally, let me mention debt relief. Senator Helms and Congressman
Leach reported out bills which conditioned U.S. support to the Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries Initiative managed by the IMF and the World
Bank. The Foreign Relations Committee bill requires the Secretary of
Treasury to certify that it is World Bank policy to--(1) suspend
funding if loans are diverted or misused, (2) not displace private
sector funding, and (3) disburse funds based on the implementation of
reforms by the recipient country including the promotion of open
markets and liberalization of trade practices, the promotion of
projects which enhance economic growth and the establishment of
benchmarks to measure progress toward graduation from assistance.
Similar conditions are required of the IMF. In addition to including
language supported by Senator Helms and Congressman Leach, we have
included House language limiting resources to countries engaged in a
pattern of human rights abuses. I supported stronger language which
would have required that the Secretary of Treasury certify that the IMF
and Bank actually were implementing new policy conditions before
Treasury was allowed to disburse funds--this approach was recommended
by Senator Gramm, the chairman of the Banking Committee. That was my
view of how it should have been handled. Instead, my colleagues on the
conference supported Helms-Leach language which releases the funds and
then requires reporting on performance over the course of the next
year.
While I completely agreed with Senator Gramm, I also shared the
problem he has with his committee--there simply were not the votes to
sustain this position. I think we have made progress on conditioning
debt relief, but the Treasury Department should understand that I will
continue to consult with Senator Gramm when we receive notifications on
intended debt relief recipients. Performance benchmarks are essential
if we are to avoid seeing the same groups of countries and banks back
in 5 years seeking the same relief all over again. Separate from the
HIPC relief, we did include binding requirements that the Treasury
Department withhold 10 percent of our contribution to any multilateral
bank until specific conditions are met on procurement and management
reforms. Not only will the banks have to
[[Page 24236]]
improve internal management practices through audits, they will have to
improve recipient country procurement management and financial
practices. This is an important step in our battle against fraud and
corruption. Once again, I think we have produced a balanced bill which
funds U.S. priorities within sound budget principles and I urge its
favorable consideration.
Finally, I repeat, this bill is below the amount spent for foreign
operations last year. That makes it somewhat unique among the
appropriations bills we have been in the process of passing, and I am
proud to say we were able to bring this bill in under last year's
total.
Mr. President, are we under some time agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is under a 1-hour time limit.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum and further suggest
the time during the quorum call be equally charged to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Senator Bennett is here and wishes to speak in morning
business. It seems to me he ought to speak on the bill time so we do
not have to move the vote any later in the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. The ranking member is here. Maybe Senator Bennett can
comment after the ranking member addresses the bill.
Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad we are here. I commend Senator
McConnell and also our counterparts in the House, Chairman Callahan and
Mrs. Pelosi. The chairman, Senator McConnell, and I have worked closely
together on this bill. In the same way I tried to accommodate those
concerns of his side of the aisle, he has tried to do the same on our
side. As a result, we have a good bipartisan bill.
We tried to meet everyone's concerns without putting in unnecessary
earmarks or taking away the appropriate flexibility the President
should have. We funded the President's important priorities, and I note
that both sides of the aisle supported those.
I am disappointed, of course, as I am sure the Senator from Kentucky
is, with the amount of time it took to get here. Finally, we are here.
Had it been left to the two of us, we could have finished this bill
before the August recess, but while we were told to make sure the cars
in the train would follow, we were not allowed in the engineer's seat
to get it down the track. It is here now, and it is a good result.
I am glad that we found an acceptable compromise on family planning
that does not restrict what private organizations can do with their own
private funds. That is only wise. After all, we have heard speeches
forever from people here about how the government should get off the
backs of individuals. We have finally agreed to do that. It was not
easy. I give very high praise to Congresswoman Pelosi for her work on
this.
I am also pleased that we include $425 million, the Senate funding
level for family planning. This is not money for abortions. No funds in
this bill can be used for abortions. This is money for family planning.
So many countries I have visited are among the poorest of the poor, and
they tell me that reducing the rate of population growth is one of
their highest priorities but they lack the money to do so. They also
say that when they have money for family planning, the number of
abortions in their country goes down.
We provide adequate authority and funding for debt forgiveness. That
had overwhelming support at the meeting the President had with
Republicans and Democrats, members of the clergy across the ideological
spectrum, representing all faiths and persuasions. I felt honored to be
in that meeting.
One of our Senate guest Chaplains that week, Father Claude Pomerleau
of the University of Portland, accompanied me there. I thank him for
his advice and help on this. I should also say that Father Pomerleau is
my wife's brother, my brother-in-law. Even the President said that it
was probably Father Pomerleau's recommendation that got me into the
White House, rather than my position that got him in.
In seriousness, on the issue of debt forgiveness, we want to help the
world's poorest countries get out of debt. We also want to be sure they
make the necessary economic reforms so they can stay out of debt in the
future. It is not enough to say, look, we are going to pay your bills
so you can get out of debt. It does nothing if then within a few years
they are back in debt.
We provided aid to Serbia, subject to important conditions relating
to Serbia's cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal. Chairman
McConnell, myself, as well as Senator Biden and others, strongly
support these conditions.
The conditions do not take effect until March 31, 2001, and we do not
intend the aid spigot to be opened wide before then. We expect the
administration--this administration and the next one--to proceed
cautiously. We will be watching, as appropriators, just how cautious
they are. After all, administrations come and go, but the
Appropriations Committee stays here, and we will be here to watch what
is done next year.
We want to support the new Serbian Government, but only if it is
truly democratic and respects the rights of its neighbors and also the
rights of minorities. We expect the administration to treat the
apprehension and prosecution of war criminals as a priority.
I am pleased with the amount of funds for HIV/AIDS. It is a $100
million increase above last year's level. We provided up to $50 million
for child immunization, and substantial increases for programs to
combat TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases.
There are a lot of other provisions I could mention, from
restrictions on assistance for Peru--we did that because of the recent
efforts to subvert democracy there. We hear the President of Peru make
promises, but then take actions that belie what he has said. We put in
additional funding for refugees. Unfortunately, we know that the
reality throughout the world today is that there are more and more
refugees. However, I strongly object to one House provision that was
included. And I told the conferees that I objected. It is a $5.2
million earmark for AmeriCares. This is a private organization that
does work in Latin America and other places. I cannot recall a single
instance--certainly not since 1989, when I became chairman of the
Foreign Operations Subcommittee; nor in the 5 years I have been ranking
member, and the Senator from Kentucky has been chairman--when we have
earmarked funds for a private organization such as this.
It was done here, as I understand it, because a 6-year, $5.2 million
proposal of AmeriCares was rejected by AID. According to AID, the
proposal was too high-tech to be sustainable in the country in
question, and because some of the work was already being done by
others. I suspect it was a proposal which would buy a lot of expensive
equipment from some manufacturer somewhere but might not be something
appropriate for that country.
Although AID suggested to AmeriCares that they submit a revised
proposal, AmeriCares opted instead to seek a congressional earmark,
ignoring the usual practice, and basically saying: Just give us the
money. We will decide what to do with it.
I have no opinion on the merits of their proposal. But if you are
going to be applying for Federal funds, you ought to follow the same
rules everybody else does.
There are literally hundreds of PVOs that submit requests to AID, and
many are rejected--some because they do not make sense, and others
because there is not the money to fund them. Are we now going to give
those other dissatisfied PVOs their own earmarks? It is a
[[Page 24237]]
terrible precedent. It does not belong in this bill.
I will give you an example. I have fought to ban landmines all over
the world. We have the Leahy War Victims Fund that spends millions of
dollars every year for landmine victims. I wrote the legislation that
was the first piece of legislation ever in any country to ban the
export of landmines.
There are many NGOs and PVOs--that is, nongovernmental organizations
and private voluntary organizations--that have come in and worked to
get rid of landmines and care for landmine victims. Some are funded
through the foreign aid bill or the defense appropriations bill. Some
are funded through private donations that they raise. Many contact me
because of my identification with this and say: Could I get Federal
funding?
One of the nice things is that a lot of these--they are screened just
before the money goes out. But can you imagine how it would be if we
simply gave them the money just because it was requested by a Senator
who wants to eradicate landmines?
It has always been my view we should let the experts judge the merits
of these proposals, rather than just hand over the money to whichever
organizations have the most political clout.
Some have complained--and I heard this morning--that this is a
Republican bill. Others have said it is a Democratic bill. They are
both wrong. Neither side got everything they wanted. There were
significant compromises on funding and on policy by both sides. That is
as it should be, especially for a bill that deals with foreign policy.
And that is why I am proud to be here with the Senator from Kentucky,
because we should not have a Republican foreign policy or a Democratic
foreign policy. We should have a foreign policy that represents the
interests of the United States.
We have had somewhat of an uneven record since the time when Senator
Vandenberg spoke about ``politics ending at the water's edge.'' But on
this bill, at least, Republicans and Democrats have come together.
It is interesting, too, because the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations of the Appropriations Committee has probably the smallest
staff of any committee around here--on the Republican side, with Robin
Cleveland, and Tim Rieser on our side, aided by just a couple of people
whom I will mention later--to put this together. We don't have huge
armies of people to help us, but maybe that is just as well because as
a result, in the end, Senators talk to Senators. That is the best way
to do things around here.
I see the Senator from Utah is on the floor.
I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
The Rand Study
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his
courtesy. I was more than happy to give him whatever leeway he wanted,
but I appreciate the opportunity to make a comment. Given the nature of
the session in which we find ourselves, we have to take every
opportunity as it comes along. As the chairman of the subcommittee, the
Senator from Kentucky, indicated, the time will be taken off the bill.
I rise to take the opportunity to respond to the comments that were
made earlier by the Senator from Massachusetts in his scathing attack
on the education system in Texas. The Senator from Massachusetts, as
well as Senator Harkin yesterday, referred to a Rand Corporation study
on the State of Texas schools. They would have us believe that based on
that study, the Texas schools are terrible and, further, that those of
us who are saying nice things about Texas schools are deliberately
misleading the public.
I want to make it clear that the people who are missing this story
are the people who sit in the gallery above the Chair. The press has
missed the story here because they have bought the line laid down by
the Senator from Massachusetts and others in his party that somehow the
Rand Corporation has denounced Texas schools as being terribly
inferior. The Rand Corporation has done no such thing. Democrats have
used the recent Rand study to try to tell everybody that the Rand
Corporation has done that. If I may, too many journalists have taken
the press release as it has come out of the Democratic headquarters and
not read the record for themselves.
I took a class in journalism. The first thing they said was, check
the facts yourself. I didn't follow that career, but I have tried to
remember that advice. So I have checked the facts myself. The place I
went to begin with, with the help of my staff, was the Rand
Corporation. Let us go back to the Rand Corporation and see what they
have to say about Texas schools. I will leave aside the argument as to
whether or not they are right. There is always the possibility that
even these so-called experts could be wrong in their analysis. Let us
set that aside for just a minute and ask ourselves, what does the Rand
Corporation have to say about Texas schools?
This is what the Rand Corporation has to say about Texas schools. I
am reading from a news release issued by the Rand Corporation itself. I
ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. BENNETT. The Rand Corporation says:
The education reforms of the 1980s and 1990s seem to be
working, according to a new RAND report, but some states are
doing far better than others in making achievement gains and
in elevating their students' performance compared with
students of similar racial and socioeconomic background in
other states. Texas and Indiana are high performers on both
these counts.
I will repeat that last sentence:
Texas and Indiana are high performers on both these counts.
This is not a Republican speaking. This is not the Bush campaign
speaking. This is the Rand Corporation speaking. Texas, a high
performer.
It goes on:
Math scores are rising across the country at a national
average rate of about one percentile point per year, a pace
outstripping that of the previous two decades and suggesting
that public education reforms are taking hold. Progress is
far from uniform, however. One group of states--led by North
Carolina and Texas and including Michigan, Indiana and
Maryland--boasts gains about twice as great as the national
average.
This is the Rand Corporation, Mr. President, saying Texas is boasting
rates of improvement twice the national average.
Back to the report:
Even more dramatic contrasts emerge in the study's
pathbreaking, cross-state comparison of achievement by
students from similar families. Texas heads the class in this
ranking with California dead last.
Interesting. They go on to say:
Although the two states are close demographic cousins,
Texas students, on average, scored 11 percentile points
higher on NAEP math and reading tests than their California
counterparts. In fact, Texans performed well with respect to
most states. On the 4th-grade NAEP math tests in 1996, Texas
non-Hispanic white students and black students ranked first
compared to their counterparts in other states, while
Hispanic students ranked fifth. On the same test, California
non-Hispanic white students ranked third from the bottom,
black students last, and Hispanic students fourth from the
bottom among states.
How can this be, for the Rand Corporation to be saying such wonderful
things about Texas and then having Democratic Senators come to the
floor and quote the Rand Corporation as saying terrible things about
Texas? If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would think the release of
the latest Rand study might have something to do with the fact that
there is an election in less than a week. But the president of the Rand
Corporation has insisted that is not the case. He has insisted that the
timing of the release of this second study, which is being used to
trash Texas, was entirely coincidental and had nothing whatever to do
with the election.
All right. Let's take him at his word and read his words to see how
he reconciles the earlier Rand statement with the later one. I didn't
tell you, but that first study I quoted from was
[[Page 24238]]
released in July, before either of the conventions took place, before
the question of Texas performance in education became a national
priority or a national issue.
How does the president of Rand reconcile these two apparently
irreconcilable positions, one where Rand says, in July, Texas is No. 1,
Texas comes in first with California last, and the two States are
demographically very similar--how do they reconcile that statement with
the statements we are hearing on the floor today?
Read what he has to say, I say again to my journalist friends, who
take the press release from the Democratic headquarters, put it in the
headlines--top story in today's television--that the Rand Corporation
has trashed the Texas record. I don't think any of them read what the
president of Rand had to say because if they had, the story would have
been different on this morning's news.
This is what he has to say:
The July study ``Improving Student Achievement'' touched on
the Texas schools and received widespread press play. Both
efforts--
Talking about the July study and this last one--
draw on NAEP scores. The new paper suggests a less positive
picture of Texas education than the earlier effort, but I do
not believe these efforts are in sharp conflict. Together, in
fact, they provide a more comprehensive picture of key
education issues.
So Rand is not backing away from their earlier statement that Texas
is No. 1 in the areas that they quoted and covered in their first
statement. They are not repudiating that.
They are not contradicting it. They are not backing away from it.
Again, the president of Rand says:
I do not believe that these efforts are in sharp conflict.
It is the politicians who have put them in sharp conflict, not the
researchers. Let's examine the research and see what it says. Quoting
again from the president of Rand:
The July report differed in scope.
Then in parentheses he says:
(It covered almost all States, not just Texas.)
Therein lies the answer to this dilemma. The July report that says
Texas ranks No. 1 was a comparative study of Texas against other
States. In that study, they said: In these areas we are checking, Texas
is the best. The Rand Corporation said ``Texas is the best.''
Now, they came back to Texas to do a different study on an entirely
different issue, and the issue they studied the second time was whether
or not the Texas test system was a good one. They came to their own
conclusion that the Texas system of testing needs to be improved. Their
judgment, their opinion. Never at any time did they say that Texas was
not getting better results than any other States, even with a system
they claim needs to be improved.
I see the chairman of the subcommittee has returned. I will be happy
to yield the floor now and get back to the foreign operations bill,
which is before us. I could not pass the opportunity to straighten out
the record.
The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Iowa have misled
us because they have not read the fine print of the report they are
quoting from, and they have not consulted the opinion of the president
of the organization they are citing. At no time, in no place, in spite
of what the political headline said, has the Rand Corporation backed
away from its conviction that Texas is first in many, if not all, of
the categories they examined on education. The Governor of Texas and
the two Senators from Texas who spoke earlier are rightly entitled to
be very proud of the progress that has taken place in education in
their State.
Exhibit 1
Rising Math Scores Suggest Education Reforms Are Working
state achievement differences tied to spending, policies texas first,
california last in test scores of similar students
Washington, D.C., July 25--The education reforms of the
1980s and 1990s seem to be working, according to a new RAND
report, but some states are doing far better than others in
making achievement gains and in elevating their students'
performance compared with students of similar racial and
socioeconomic background in other states. Texas and Indiana
are high performers on both these counts.
The study is based on an analysis of National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) tests given between 1990 and
1996. The authors rank the 44 participating states by raw
achievement scores, by scores that compare students from
similar families, and by score improvements. They also
analyze which policies and programs account for the
substantial differences in achievement across states that
can't be explained by demographics. Here are the key
findings:
Math scores are rising across the country at a national
average rate of about one percentile point per year, a pace
outstripping that of the previous two decades and suggesting
that public education reforms are taking hold. Progress is
far from uniform, however. One group of states--led by North
Carolina and Texas and including Michigan, Indiana and
Maryland--boasts gains about twice as great as the national
average. Another group--including Wyoming, Georgia, Delaware,
and Utah--shows minuscule gains or none at all. Most states
fall in between.
Even more dramatic contrasts emerge in the study's
pathbreaking, cross-state comparison of achievement by
students from similar families. Texas heads the class in this
ranking with California dead last. Wisconsin, Montana, Iowa,
Maine, North Dakota, Indiana and New Jersey cluster closely
behind Texas. Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama
and Rhode Island perform almost as dismally as California.
Although the two states are close demographic cousins,
Texas students, on average, scored 11 percentile points
higher on NAEP math and reading tests that their California
counterparts. In fact, the Texans performed well with respect
to most states. On the 4th-grade NAEP math tests in 1996,
Texas non-Hispanic white students and black students ranked
first compared to their counterparts in other states, while
Hispanic students ranked fifth. On the same test, California
non-Hispanic white students ranked third from the bottom,
black students last, and Hispanic students fourth from the
bottom among states.
Differences in state scores for students with similar
families can be explained, in part, by per pupil expenditures
and how these funds are allocated. States at the top of the
heap generally have lower pupil-teacher ratios in lower
grades, higher participation in public prekindergarten
programs and a higher percentage of teachers who are
satisfied with the resources they are provided for teaching.
These three factors account for about two-thirds of the
Texas-California differential. Teacher turnover also has a
statistically significant effect on achievement. (California
is now implementing class-size reduction and other reforms
but these steps began after the 1996 NAEP tests.)
Having a higher percentage of teachers with masters degrees
and extensive teaching experience appears to have
comparatively little effect on student achievement across
states. Higher salaries also showed little effect, possibly
reflecting the inefficiency of the current compensation
system in which pay raises reward both high- and low-quality
teachers. However, the report points out that salary
differences may have more important achievements effects
within states than between states. Also, they may have
greater impact during periods when teachers are in shorter
supply than during the 1990-1996 measurement period.
To raise achievement scores, the most efficient and
effective use of education dollars is to target states with
higher proportions of minority and disadvantaged students
with funding for lower pupil-teacher ratios, more widespread
prekindergarten efforts, and more adequate teaching
resources. As for teacher salaries and education, the report
adds, ``efforts to increase the quality of teachers in the
long run are important, but . . . significant productivity
gains can be obtained with the current teaching force if
their working conditions are improved.''
The most plausible explanation for the remarkable rate of
math gains by North Carolina and Texas is the integrated sets
of policies involving standards, assessment and
accountability that both states implemented in the late 1980s
and early 1990s.
The RAND study, led by David Grissmer, is based on NAEP
tests given in 1990, 1992, 1994 and 1996 to representative
samples of 2,500 students from the 44 voluntarily
participating states. Five tests were given in mathematics
and two in reading at either the 4th- or 8th-grade level. Not
all of the states took all of the tests. And there were too
few reading tests to permit a separate analysis of those
results. Taken together, however, the tests provided the
first set of data permitting statistically valid achievement
comparisons across states. The researchers used data from the
census and from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey
to establish the student samples' family characteristics.
The 1998 NAEP reading and math scores became available too
late to be incorporated in this analysis. ``We're examining
those data now, however, and we find that the
[[Page 24239]]
state rankings change little and our findings about which
policies make the most difference aren't affected at all,''
Grissmer declares.
``Our results certainly challenge the traditional view of
public education as `unreformable','' he concludes. ``But the
achievement of disadvantaged students is still substantially
affected by inadequate resources. Stronger federal
compensatory programs are required to address this
inequity.''
Grissmer's coauthors include Ann Flanagan, Jennifer Kawata
and Stephanie Williamson. Improving Student Achievement: What
NAEP Test Scores Tell Us was supported by the ExxonMobil
Foundation, the Danforth Foundation, the NAEP Secondary
Analysis Program, the Center for Research on Education
Diversity and Excellence and by RAND.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Utah has made
an extraordinarily good point. If he would like to speak further, I can
wait. I am going to propose a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BENNETT. I have probably exhausted my indignation on that
subject, I say to the Senator from Kentucky. I will be available again
if someone comes along to try to misinterpret and misquote these
studies.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend for his very important contribution
to what has become an issue across America.
Mr. President, with relation to the foreign operations bill, I ask
unanimous consent that the vote regarding the foreign operations
conference report occur beginning at 4:30 p.m., and that there be 4
minutes for debate immediately following the vote for closing remarks
with respect to the pending Feingold amendment and S. 2508, and that
that vote immediately occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was told this had been cleared on
both sides. We will propound the unanimous consent request later when
it is cleared.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I had to leave the floor for a moment. Am I
correct that the continuing resolution will not be here for a 4:30
vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, would it be
his intention, once all time is finished or yielded back, to go to a
rollcall vote on this bill?
Mr. McCONNELL. I am told that is fine with our side. We will be happy
to finish up the debate and vote.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final
passage of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I know we are discussing the underlying bill. I ask
unanimous consent to be yielded 7 minutes.
Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: It is my
understanding that we have a vote scheduled at 4:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not correct; that has been changed.
Mr. REID. I don't understand how we are not having a vote at 4:30.
How could it have been changed?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I propounded a unanimous consent
agreement to which the Senator from Florida objected and that is how we
found ourselves where we are.
Mr. REID. So what I stated earlier on the floor--that we had a vote
at 4:30--was really not accurate, is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote was to occur at that time, but the
measure on which the vote was to occur has not yet arrived from the
House.
Who yields time?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I have requested time. I understand under a previous
unanimous consent request, Senator Graham of Florida was granted 30
minutes. He is yielding me a part of his time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Florida yield the time
to the Senator from Louisiana?
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know we have been discussing a variety
of subjects in the last few hours. The matter before the Senate is the
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
One of the difficulties all Members are having, is trying to get some
accurate information about what is actually in these bills, as they
come to us rather quickly. That is one of the things we have been
talking about today. I think Senator Leahy raised an excellent point.
There are provisions in foreign ops about which I also have some
serious concerns. But right now, I just wanted to take a few minutes to
discuss the Adoption Tax Credit.
Adoption Tax Credit
Mr. President, the adoption tax credit is broadly supported in this
Chamber by Democrats and Republicans. It is one of the issues we seem
to be able to come together on to say, yes, we believe in adoption.
Adoption affirms life. It affirms families. It helps us to build
families in very special ways. It provides an opportunity for children
who don't have parents, and for parents who desperately want children,
to get together.
Over the last couple of years, together, Democrats and Republicans,
the White House, President Clinton and the First Lady, have been
aggressive advocates of adoption. We have made great progress.
Just last week, under the tremendous leadership of Chairman Helms, we
passed the first ever International Treaty on Adoption. This treaty is
going to reduce corruption, minimize the costs of international
adoptions, and expedite this process so the children all around the
world can find homes. We believe there are no unwanted children, just
unfound families. We passed historic legislation a few years ago to
help break down racial barriers to allow people of all different races
to adopt children in need, in order to build families. We all know that
love knows no color lines.
We are doing a wonderful job. I am on the floor today to encourage my
colleagues to just try to do a little bit better. I am concerned that
we are not going to expand this adoption tax credit and increase it in
ways that are meaningful, in ways that will make a difference.
Just two months ago, many members of this body gathered in
Philadelphia and vowed that under their leadership, no child would be
left behind. This is a laudable goal, and one I think that every member
of this body embraced. Here is our opportunity to prove it.
Let me briefly explain what I mean. Right now, as many people know--
particularly those who have adopted children, or who have been touched
in a positive way in their life through adoption, either as an adoptee,
as a birth mother who is happy with the choice she made, or an adoptive
couple--there is in place a $5,000 tax credit for adoption. We adopted
this tax credit in 1996, in an effort to provide assistance to families
wishing to adopt. It allows parents who adopt a child to receive a
maximum of $5,000 in credit on their taxes. If that child is what we
call a special needs child, the amount of the credit is raised by
$1,000. In addition, reimbursements for adoption expenses from a
private employer are also excluded from an adoptive parent's gross
annual income.
The National Adoption Clearinghouse estimates that a private adoption
costs anywhere from $4,000 to $30,000. International adoptions are
reported at between $10,000 and $30,000. About six months ago, I was at
a citizenship ceremony for newly adopted children. One mother came up
to me and told me that, without the tax credit, she could not have even
thought about adopting a second child.
So this is an important tax credit. It helps waiting children find
homes. It helps working couples who want to be parents experience the
sheer joy parenting brings. But it is not working for everyone.
Unfortunately, the way the
[[Page 24240]]
credit is currently structured, it is not helping all adoptive
families, just some. Let me show you why.
As you can see, I have pictures of three children here, all of whom
were adopted. The first Elena, a child from Guatemala, who was adopted
when she was one year old. She has no known health conditions. This
second child is Jack, a little boy from the United States, who was
given up for adoption when he was born. Jack was immediately placed
through a private adoption agency. Jack also has no known health
conditions.
And this is Serina, a little girl, also from the United States who
was also recently adopted. Serina was taken into foster care
immediately upon her birth. She was born with prenatal cocaine
addiction. She is small, in a wheelchair, and has difficulty seeing and
hearing. She suffers from Cerebral Palsy, as well as multiple other
problems.
As I mentioned, these two children, Elena and Jack, are relatively
healthy. The third child, Serina, has multiple challenges. Under our
current system, one would think all of these children and their
families would deserve some help with adoption. But right now under our
system, Elena and Jack have received help. Elena's parents received
$9,786, while Jack's family claimed $5,890. Serina's parents, on the
other hand, received nothing.
Under the current tax code, only expenses which are incurred in the
act of adoption are eligible. Although adopting Serina meant that her
adoptive parents had to renovate their car and make their home
wheelchair accessible, such costs are not ``qualified adoption
expenses.''
As I mentioned, the difficulty lies in the tax code. One can be
reimbursed for expenses related to the adoption. But, as is widely
known in the adoption community, when you adopt a special needs child,
perhaps one who is not physically handicapped, or one who has emotional
or mental difficulties or has been in foster care, there are little or
no expenses related to the active adoption.
Serina is a special needs child, just like the 100,000 special needs
children who are freed for adoption in the United States and yet are
still waiting for a home. These are all children like Serina, waiting
for a family to love and care for them. We want that adoption tax
credit to work for these children, as well. The Department of Treasury
estimates that, not including step parents, there were 77,000 adoptions
in 1998, 31,000 of which were special needs. That is almost half.
Therefore, under our current system, the very children and families
we are trying to help, encourage, and reward for opening up their homes
and hearts to these children are actually being left out.
Here is a report to Congress from our own Department of Treasury, a
report we received just in the last week. I brought this to the
attention of our ranking member on the Finance Committee, Senator
Moynihan. This has also been transmitted to Chairman Roth from
Delaware, to help my colleagues understand that, according to this
report, special needs children are being left out. I know that in the
final days of the session, negotiators have been trying to reach a
final agreement on a tax package. However, I am told that, while this
package does include a provision to extend the non-special needs tax
credit for two additional years, it does not include any relief for
special needs children.
I know some people might say: Senator Landrieu is not right. She
couldn't possibly be right. This can not be happening. We are not
giving a tax credit for healthy kids and no tax credit for special
needs kids.
That wasn't our intention. At least I believe it wasn't our
intention.
Let me conclude by saying, when people stand up on this floor, or in
Philadelphia, or in California, giving speeches all over America, and
say they don't want to leave children behind, that ``no child will be
left behind'', we are about to leave 100,000 children behind, because
we will not take the time and the energy to fix this adoption tax
credit. Children such as Serina, children in my State and a number of
others, all of these beautiful children from different States--these
are the kids who are about to be left behind.
If I have to come to this floor every day until we are finished--and
Lord only knows how long we will be here--I will continue to do so, to
speak for the children who are being left behind. We can fix the tax
credit; it costs very little to fix it. If we are truly a body which
vows to leave no child behind, then we must do something to help both
special needs and non special needs children.
Mr. President, I will come to the floor every day if necessary to
ensure that these children are not left behind.
I thank the Chair. I yield back my remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time remains under my 30 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-one minutes 10 seconds.
Fiscal Policy
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as is necessary.
For the last several weeks, I have been raising concerns about the
direction of our fiscal policy. Today, we reach a historic moment. Many
were here in the 1980's and 1990's when the Federal Government, through
annual deficits, acquired a record national debt of almost $5.5
trillion. In 1992, we reached the peak of this when we had a 1-year
deficit of in excess of $290 billion.
In the 1990s, we took a number of steps to try to rectify this
situation and to mitigate this constant increase in the national debt.
A key part of that process occurred in 1997. In 1997, we set spending
limits for ourselves, including spending limits on the discretionary
accounts of the Federal Government such as the account that we are
dealing with today. We promised ourselves and the public that for every
tax dollar cut there would be $1 less spent, and vice versa. That is
the way in which a family would approach having to restrain its budget
in order to come into line with its income. It would buy the holiday
gifts that it could afford but not necessarily the ones that everyone
in the family wants because for those family budgets there are some
very real caps.
But, for Congress, the commitment to realistic budget and fiscal
responsibility was a novel, even a radical idea. We had not even
thought about it that much in the preceding 20 or 30 years. Apparently,
it was so radical that it was too much to ask. It is almost as if this
Halloween season we have all turned into Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. On
the campaign trail we put on one costume; that is, the costume of our
better selves where we boast about the courage and foresight it took to
balance the budget. We talk about all the good things we are going to
do, whether it is saving Social Security, providing a prescription drug
benefit for Medicare, cutting taxes, or adding spending in other
favorable programs. Then we return to Congress and we take off our
mask. We begin grabbing for what we can get, a few billion here, a few
billion there, regardless of the long-term consequences.
We have doled out treats to line our political pockets while we are
playing a trick on the American public. That trick is that we are
sleepwalking through the surplus. We are about to deny ourselves and
future generations one of the greatest opportunities that we have had
in American political and economic history: to use this enormous period
of prosperity to deal with some of those long-term issues that will
affect, not just ourselves, but future generations.
But as we vote to set the deficit monster free, we make the promise
that this is only for this year. We are not really going to let him out
of the cage; we are just going to open the door a bit and let him sniff
some of the desirable consequences of profligate spending. This year we
tell the American public this is our chance to celebrate this American
prosperity. Next year we will cut the monster down to size, put him
back in his cage, and no long-term harm will have been done. But the
[[Page 24241]]
truth is for our children and our grandchildren this could be a very
scary Halloween.
My friends, are we really so humble as to believe that what we do
today will not resonate through future years? I personally find it hard
to believe that this will be just a 1-year exception to a constancy of
fiscal discipline.
In 1997, we planned for the future because we knew that what we did
with the taxpayers' dollars would have real consequences. They are
having real consequences.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Washington Post article
aptly entitled ``Binges Becoming Regular Budget Fare'' be printed in
the Record immediately after my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this story chronicles the crumbling of our
wall of fiscal resolve in the face of a behemoth of appropriations
bills. The bill we have before us, the foreign operations bill, carries
a $14.9 billion price tag.
It has been stated that this bill is actually lower than the bill
that we passed last year. If I am in error--and it is very difficult to
respond since we have only in the last few hours gotten a copy of a
multipage bill, but as I read through the bill, it is my analysis that
in calculating last year's $15.5 billion expenditure, we have included
an almost $2 billion item, the Wye Plantation commitments for the
Middle Eastern peace, which are nonrecurring. So if you are comparing
apples to apples, those things that we spent money on last year and
those things we are going to spend money on this year, actually last
year's comparable appropriation for foreign operations was closer to
$13.5 billion. So instead of the $14.9 billion being a reduction, it
actually represents approximately a 10-percent increase over the
spending that we had on this same account last year, a 10-percent
increase, while we are operating under the rule that we are only
supposed to spend the rate of inflation, which is 3.5 percent, as an
increase from 1 year's budget to the next.
But that is not what is the true monster in this bill. The true
monster in this bill is stuck into the appropriations language, which
for us on the floor is printed in the Congressional Record, since we do
not have a copy of the actual bill and conference report. It is
specifically stuck on page H10776, nestled in between a provision that
relates to gifts to the United States for reduction of the public
debt--and I am glad to know that we get some gifts to reduce the public
debt--and a provision that provides debt relief for heavily indebted
poor countries. It may be appropriate that this language I am about to
quote is inserted in between those two provisions.
In section 701(a), this language appears:
Section 251 (c)(5) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 . . . is amended by striking
subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(A) for discretionary category: $637,000,000,000 in new
budget authority and $612,695,000,000 in outlays;''.
That might seem fairly unexciting, but let me tell you what we are
preparing to do. In that Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we provided a
spending limit for discretionary accounts for each of the future years.
For the fiscal year 2001, the year for which we are now appropriating,
the spending limit was established at $542 billion. The legislation we
are about to vote upon will increase that figure from $542 billion to
$637 billion, a 17.5-percent increase in the allowable expenditure in
this 1 year alone. That is the scale of the monster that we are about
to let out of the cage by adopting this legislation.
This figure will put far more than a dent in the surplus that we
promised. It will put a massive hole in our budget projections. The
fact is, by the time we are done, Social Security is more likely to be
floundering midstream without a life vest than to be in a secure
lockbox on dry land. Instead of fiscal responsibility, we are now
practicing fiscal myopia. We are honing in on the magic number, a $4.6
trillion surplus over the next 10 years. However, what we are
forgetting to completely level with the American people about is that
that $4.6 trillion is predicated on the assumption we are only going to
spend $542 billion this year. We are about to authorize a number that
is almost $100 billion larger.
The forecasters of the Congressional Budget Office do not have a
crystal ball. They can only see the future the way we look at it and
the degree of confidence they place in our actions. The CBO numbers,
upon which the $4.6 trillion surplus is predicated, are based on those
commitments made in 1997.
This appropriations bill demonstrates that we are not committed to
those commitments of 1997. The surplus projections assume that
discretionary spending increases each year would be restrained to the
rate of inflation. We are about to completely abandon that facade.
What are we about to do as we go into this new reckless era? The best
case scenario--and we can assume under that that we will, indeed, be
able to increase discretionary spending for the future only by the rate
of inflation, that this is just a 1-year aberration through which we
are living; that Halloween is going to be repealed for future years--if
we have that best case scenario, we can anticipate that our surplus
will sink by about $100 billion over the next 10 years--$100 billion
less than the projections.
I do not think that is a credible scenario. I do not believe there is
any reason to believe that what we are doing today is exceptional.
Rather, what we are doing today is going to be precedential for the
future. And assume that it is precedential. The discretionary spending
each year increases by the same rate that we are increasing it this
year; that is, approximately 9 percent, or 5.5 percent more than the
rate of inflation.
If we act in each of the next 10 years with the same abandon that we
do this year, we will spend the entire 10-year projected surplus on
this increased spending. There will be no money to strengthen Social
Security. There will be no money to finance a tax cut. There will be no
money to provide for prescription drugs through Medicare. In fact,
spending at this rate will not only eliminate all of those potentials,
but Congress will be forced to dip into the Social Security surplus,
that thing which it has committed it would never ever do, by $400
billion over 10 years.
So we are making some very serious decisions as we pass this
appropriations bill with its enormous increase in the limitation on
discretionary spending.
Save Social Security, indeed. Could it be that when we talked about
saving Social Security, we really meant preserving it as a museum piece
so we could talk to our grandchildren about what it used to be like? We
will tell them that back when we were young, the Government actually
sent you money when you grew older and deserved a rest. But if
discretionary spending will dent the surplus, the direction we are
taking on mandatory spending will virtually hollow it out.
Our lack of fiscal discipline is not only to be found in the
appropriations bill but also in the creation of new entitlements. We
have already passed the Defense Department authorization bill that
changes the health benefits as a new entitlement and will reduce the
surplus by $60 billion over the next 10 years.
We are poised to approve give-backs to Medicare providers that will
cost another estimated $75 to $80 billion of our surplus over the next
10 years.
Another $260 billion disappears if we pass a tax bill, which it is
rumored that it is about to be presented to us by our colleagues from
across the hall in the House of Representatives.
So when you add up all of this laundry list, you will find that we
have reduced our surplus to another return to deficits.
It is very easy to add up these numbers and simply say it is too
much, but I am well aware that much of the spending is for worthy
causes, many of which I myself support. But what these individual
pieces of legislation do not add up to is a solid plan for the future.
What they do not add up to is the requirement that we make choices,
that we set priorities, that we decide which
[[Page 24242]]
of all of these good things is most important, and that we have the
discipline to stick to those priorities.
I ask again, whatever happened to ``Save Social Security first''?
Can we really say we have done anything to shore up the Medicare
system which is desperately in need of an infusion if it is to remain
viable for today's seniors, their children, and grandchildren?
Are we ever going to be able to pay down the debt?
Our colleagues in the House have suggested that 90 percent of the
surplus for this year go to debt reduction. That proposal was for this
year only, for fiscal year 2001, however, because they cannot do it
over the next 10 years. Ten percent of the surplus would be $456
billion. Congress may very well enact legislation in the next few years
that will exceed that amount by in excess of $100 billion.
We have already committed ourselves to more spending than the House
of Representatives pledge would require using 90 percent of the surplus
to pay down the national debt.
Mr. President, $100 billion is more money than most Americans can
ever conceive of.
In a few short months, history will move forward again and we will
gather together in the Chamber of the House of Representatives to greet
a newly elected President to hear his first State of the Union Address.
By almost any measure, the state of our Union is strong. Our economy
is the envy of the world. Incomes are up. Unemployment is down. Home
ownership is up. Inflation is low. Mortgage rates remain modest.
As we await a new President, and the first State of the Union Address
from that new President--the first new President elected in the 21st
century--I am reminded of the historic State of the Union speech
delivered by President Clinton at the beginning of 1998.
To provide context from that time, we, as a nation, were on the verge
of shifting from annual deficits to a hope for a promised projected
surplus. We were looking at a prospect we had not faced in years: What
do we do with a possible surplus?
In his 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton answered
that question. If I could quote from his eloquent words of that
evening:
For three decades, six Presidents have come before you to
warn of the damage deficits pose to our nation. Tonight, I
come before you to announce that the federal deficit--once so
incomprehensibly large that it had eleven zeros--will be,
simply, zero.
If we balance the budget for the next year, it is projected
that we'll then have a sizable surplus in the years that
immediately follow. What should we do with this projected
surplus?
I have a simple, four-word answer: Save Social Security
first.
Mr. President, that simple four-word answer, ``Save Social Security
first,'' brought all of us to our feet in January of 1998. And, Mr.
President at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, your greatest legacy will be the
restoration of fiscal discipline here in Washington.
Mr. President, you are being challenged as to the fidelity and
sustainability of that commitment to fiscal discipline. We should now
resist the temptation to allow the deficit monster to escape from the
cage again.
We should give to President Clinton the rightful recognition for
reversing decades of rampant borrowing and, as a result of that
courage, producing sustained national prosperity and the potential for
even more prosperity.
But, Mr. President, at the end of your administration, we need you to
remain true to the principles that have produced this legacy. If we in
the Congress are unable to exercise fiscal discipline, we will have to
turn to you to provide us with the necessary restraints.
We are talking here about our children and our grandchildren. Are we
again going to return to the days when we expect them to pay our bills
or are we going to accept the responsibility that virtually every
generation of Americans--but for those who have lived in the last 30
years--were prepared to accept? And that is that we would--each
generation, each year--pay our bills and not ask future generations to
do so. That is the fundamental issue we face with this appropriations
bill. Because I believe it fails to meet that test, I will vote no.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 25, 2000]
Binges Becoming Regular Budget Fare
(By Eric Pianin)
Rules created more than two decades ago to impose fiscal
restraint on Congress have broken down, helping fuel a year-
end spending spree that is resulting in billions of extra
dollars for highways and bridges, water projects, emergency
farm aid, school construction and scores of other projects.
Many budget hawks have derided the binge as a typical
election year ``porkfest.'' But key lawmakers and experts on
federal budgeting say another less visible problem is that
the law aimed at reining in such spending has been
effectively gutted by the congressional leadership.
In particular, lawmakers are increasingly ignoring the
annual congressional budge resolution, the document that is
supposed to guide spending and tax decisions in the House and
Senate every year. In years past, lawmakers might miss their
budget targets by a few billion dollars, but now they are
busting the budget by as much as $50 billion a year.
This year's budget resolution, for instance, called for
about $600 billion in spending this fiscal year on defense,
health, education and other non-entitlement programs. When
Congress and the White House finally complete their
negotiations, probably this week, the total will be $640
billion or more.
One reason, lawmakers say, is that the GOP congressional
leadership has adopted--largely for political reasons--
unrealistic budgets that understate the amount of spending
members want. Another is that the emergence of big surpluses
has made Congress much less vigilant bout living within its
means--and more prone to make up the rules as it goes along.
``I think the budget process has been destroyed and I
think, unfortunately, Republicans have been heavily numbered
among the assassins,'' said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), a
veteran of budget skirmishes. ``I think we've made a mockery
of the process and it will be very difficult to revive it.''
Stanley Collender, a prominent expert on federal spending,
added: ``What we're seeing is budget decision-making by the
seat of their pants.''
Collender and other experts say the increased spending
being approved by Congress could begin to cut into projected
surpluses, leaving less for the spending and tax cut
initiatives proposed by Vice President Gore and Texas Gov.
George W. Bush. Outside of the Social Security program,
analysts have projected the federal government will run a
$2.2 trillion surplus over the next decade. But the Concord
Coalition, a bipartisan budget watchdog group, estimates that
the forecast surpluses are likely to shrink by two-thirds, to
about $172 billion, if congressional spending patterns
persist.
Congress is on track to boost non-defense discretionary
spending by 5.2 percent above the rate of inflation during
fiscal 2001--the sharpest spending increase of its type in 25
years--according to a new analysis by Democrats on the House
Budget Committee.
The decision to ignore the budget resolution is only one
sign of a general brreakdown of fiscal discipline on Capitol
Hill, according to fiscal experts. Congress and the Clinton
administration are also ignoring spending caps both agreed to
as part of the 1997 legislation to balance the federal
budget.
Congress's enthusiasm for real budget constraints began to
wane almost as soon as deficits gave way to surpluses
beginning three years ago. Until then, the specter of
towering annual deficits of as much as $290 billion had
fostered a series of hardnosed policies, including a 1990
budget deal that for the first time imposed caps on spending
and required Congress to offset tax cuts by reducing spending
or raising other revenue.
The emergence of surpluses has left it to lawmakers to
produce budget plans that would impose spending discipline
with an eye to the time when Medicare and Social Security
will begin to run short of money. But that has not happened.
In the politically charged environment of Capitol Hill, the
House and Senate budget committees in recent years produced
plans that budget experts say were more GOP political
manifestors than practical blueprints. The problem came to a
head in 1998, when House Budget Committee Chairman John R.
Kasich (Ohio), then a Republican presidential aspirant,
produced a House budget resolution so top-heavy with tax cuts
and tough on domestic spending that he could not sell it to
Senate Republicans or the White House.
For the first time in nearly 25 years, Congress completed
that year without a budget. The following year Republicans
managed to agree among themselves on a budget, but the
document was largely ignored by GOP leaders when they
negotiated a final spending agreement with the White House.
This year's plan was somewhat more pragmatic, but even so
it called for $150 billion of tax cuts--about twice what
Congress will finally settle for--and spending cuts in many
areas that GOP members of the appropriations committees
refused to accept.
[[Page 24243]]
Some of the additional funding this year will go for
emergencies, such as restoration of western forest lands hit
by fires last summer and security problems at the national
nuclear laboratory at Los Alamos, NM. But much of the
additional money will go to satisfy the election year demands
of Clinton and special projects sought by GOP and Democratic
lawmakers--ranging from $2 billion for extra highway and
bridge projects to $5 million for an insect-rearing facility
in Stoneville, Miss.
``The budget process can only do what the political will
can support,'' said G. William Hoagland, the Republican staff
director of the Senate Budget Committee. ``I would argue
that, if anything, what this year shows is that you need a
[tough] budget process even more in times of surpluses than
in times of deficits.''
Another phenomenon in recent years has been a growing
propensity on the part of congressional leaders to overrule
key committees--even in promoting big policy changes. Last
year, for example, Republican leaders waited until late in
the year to unveil details of a plan to wall off the Social
Security surplus from the rest of the budget. They returned
from this year's August recess with a new idea for using
nine-tenths of next year's surplus for debt reduction.
While both proposals, arguably, will help to impose some
limitations on spending, they were presented without any
meaningful debate or review by the committees with
jurisdiction. House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.)
defended the practice, noting that ``the leadership can't
have any idea that holds water unless the [GOP] conference
holds it with them.''
BUSTING THE BUDGET
[Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Actual Excess
Fiscal year resolution spending spending
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................. $528 $538 $10
1998.................................. 531 533 2
1999.................................. 533 583 50
2000.................................. 540 587 47
2001.................................. 600 \1\ 640 40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate.
Source: Senate Budget Committee.
THE CUBAN TRANSITION PROJECT
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senator McConnell,
Chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee in a
colloquy regarding an important project addressed in both the Senate
and House Committee Reports. This project is the Cuban Transition
Project located in Miami, FL.
Mr. McCONNELL. I would be pleased to engage in such a colloquy.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, my purpose for entering into this colloquy
is to seek clarification from the Chairman regarding the Conferees'
intent to support the Cuban Transition Project. The House Committee
Report states that it supports $3.5 million be provided through USAID
for this important initiative to provide policy makers, analysts and
others with accurate information and practical policy recommendations
that will be needed over a multi-year basis to assist this country in
preparation for our next stage of interaction with the Cuban community
and nation. The Senate Committee Report similarly supported this
project, and it is my understanding that you support this project and
intend that it receive support from USAID.
Mr. McCONNELL. That is correct. Support for the Cuban Transition
Project was clearly stated in both the House and Senate Reports, and it
is the Committee's intention that the project be supported by USAID as
indicated. This project is envisioned as a critical component as we
prepare ourselves for dealing with Cuban issues in the future. It is
our intent that the Cuban Transition Project receive funding this year.
Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for reiterating his support and
clarifying the intent of the subcommittee. This project has the strong
support of the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee,
and I know that this committee will also be expressing support to the
agency. I would like to ask if you will be willing to further advise
the Agency formally of your position on this matter.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the subcommittee will further clarify
this matter with USAID and I would be happy to work further on any
concerns that my colleague from Florida may have.
Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman for his comments.
POLIO ERADICATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
Senator Leahy, ranking member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations
Subcommittee. It is my understanding that the Senate Appropriations
Committee report recommended $30 million for the global polio
eradication campaign at USAID and the House recommended $25 million. It
is also my understanding that the Child Survival and Disease Programs
Fund received a $248 million increase for Fiscal 2001 and that there
are sufficient funds for the USAID to provide the $30 million for
global polio eradication, am I correct?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes, we have provided sufficient funds to fund polio
eradication at the Senate level of $30 million.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator work with me to ensure that the current
USAID Administrator and the Administrator in the new administration
provides $30 million for global polio eradication for fiscal 2001?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes, I would be happy to work for the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Senator Leahy for your commitment and
leadership on this issue.
micronutrient funding
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished ranking
member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Senator Leahy would
engage in a brief colloquy about funding for USAID programs in
micronutrients?
Mr. LEAHY. I would be delighted to do so with the distinguished
Senator from Maryland, a member of the subcommittee.
Ms. MILKULSKI. It is my understanding that the conference report
currently under consideration makes no reference to micronutrient
programs funded through the Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund.
However, the Senate provided $30 million for this activity in its
version of H.R. 4811, while the House provided $25 million. Given that
the conference report before the Senate provides $963 million for child
survival and disease prevention activities, an increase of almost $250
million that I strongly support, I was wondering if the Ranking Member
would join me in working to obtain the Senate level of $30 million for
micronutrient programs.
Mr. LEAHY. I would be happy to. As the Senator has correctly pointed
out, the conference report includes a significant increase for child
survival activities at USAID. AID is strongly encouraged to dedicate
more recourses to the micronutrient programs.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank my colleague.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the conference
report on the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
I reluctantly voted against that conference report, because it
contained a provision dramatically increasing the budget caps,
effectively throwing fiscal discipline to the wind.
But I want to go on record indicating that, if the amendment busting
the budget caps had not been included in the bill, my vote would have
been an enthusiastic yes. Substantively, this is a remarkably good
bill, and I commend the managers, Chairman McConnell and the ranking
member, Senator Leahy, as well as Chairman Callahan and Congresswoman
Pelosi for their excellent work.
An unprecedented commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS abroad and full
funding of the Administration's request for debt relief initiatives are
among the many laudable provisions in the bill that complement this
year's authorizing work of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The conference report contains significant assistance for important
family planning work, which can help to bring better health and
economic development to families and especially to women around the
world. Moreover, I am pleased to see that the bill does not contain
restrictive, so-called ``Mexico City'' language designed to limit what
private organizations can do with funds raised from non-U.S. government
sources.
During the debate on the Senate's version of this bill earlier this
year, I asked for, and received, the commitment of Senators McConnell
and
[[Page 24244]]
Leahy to pursue full funding for flood recovery assistance in
Mozambique and southern Africa, a region of the world utterly
devastated by a series of cyclones earlier this year. This was
especially tragic, because prior to the flooding, Mozambique had been
making progress toward climbing out of poverty, enjoying economic
growth rates of 10 percent per year. I want to thank both Senators for
keeping their word. This conference report contains $135 million in
flood recovery assistance for the region. This is the right thing to
do.
I took a particular interest in the southern Africa issue, in part
because I serve as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee's Subcommittee on African Affairs. In that same capacity, I
have joined with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to insist that the Administration make accountability a top priority in
the context of our policy towards Sierra Leone. I am gratified to note
that the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report
includes language urging the State Department to provide support for
the Special War Crimes Court for Sierra Leone. The support of the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee for this key
Congressional priority in West Africa should not be overlooked.
In another area of interest, I note that the conference report
retains language suspending certain types of military and security
assistance to Indonesia until a set of conditions relating to the
disarmament and disbanding of militia forces and accountability for
gross human rights abuses have been met. At the same time, it maintains
an appropriate level of assistance for the people of East Timor, who
are seeking to rebuild their communities and to fully realize their
independence each day.
Finally, the conference report provides strong support for the Peace
Corps and for important development assistance accounts which, when
responsibly administered and monitored, can serve U.S. interests in
building a more stable, prosperous, and democratic world.
All of these sound provisions make it all the more unfortunate that
the bill has been tainted with the budget-busting amendment, so that my
vote would have been an accurate reflection of my support for this
bill. Too often in the past, the Congress has failed to understand the
critical link between U.S. engagement with the rest of the world and
our national interests--our security, our health, our economic
stability, and even our national values. This bill recognizes those
links and moves in the right direction. It's a shame that a bill that
makes such sensible policy choices, so casually busts the budget caps
that we rely upon to ensure fiscal responsibility.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Conference
Report for Foreign Operations Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001.
The bill before us includes much that is good; in fact, it includes
much that is important for our national security. For example, with the
Middle East experiencing a level of turmoil not witnessed since the
1973 Yom Kippur War, the assistance in this bill for Israel and for
other friends and allies in the region constitutes an essential
component of our policy there. Vital humanitarian assistance programs
are funded, including debt relief for especially poor countries.
However, I cannot support this conference report because it raises
fiscal year 2001 discretionary spending caps to $637 billion from the
$600 billion that was provided for in the budget resolution passed in
April. Assuming that will be the new total amount of spending allowed,
that would be nearly $40 billion more than the budget resolution, $13
billion more than what the President requested, and $50 billion more
than what was spent in fiscal year 2000.
In addition, there remains the usual plethora of parochially-driven
spending directives. While the bill appears to avoid legally
restrictive earmarks, the effect of numerous provisions intended to do
precisely that: direct funds where Members of Congress want them to go,
usually for parochial reasons. I will be submitting a list of such
items for the Record.
The decision to vote against this bill, irrespective of the usual
pork-barrel provisions, however, was difficult. I recognize the
importance of aid to Israel during this crucial period in its history,
and I agree with the imperative of relieving the poorest countries of
the burden of their international debts. The fiscal irresponsibility of
Section 701 of this bill adjusting the spending caps upward to
accommodate greater levels of pork barrel spending is too much to
ignore. I'm not ignoring it, Mr. President. I oppose passage of this
bill because I abhor the continuing disregard for fiscal responsibility
it represents. And I abhor the cynicism illuminated by a decision to
attach such fiscally irresponsible language to a spending bill so
important to our national security.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record
earmarks, Member-adds, and directive language.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Conference Report on H.R. 4811, Foreign Operations Appropriations for
Fiscal Year 2001--Earmarks, Member-Adds, and Directive Language
International Fertilizer Development Center: $4 million;
United States Telecommunications Training Institute:
$500,000;
National Albanian American Council training program: $1.3
million;
Section 536 Impact on Jobs in the United States:
restrictive language intended to curtail trade that adversely
affects employment in the United States;
Section 545 Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products: Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to report to
Congress on efforts by heads of Federal agencies to ensure
that directors of international financial institutions make
full use of American commodities, products and services;
Kiwanis/UNICEF Iodine Deficiency Program: $5 million;
University of California, San Fransisco: $500,000 to
develop detailed epidemiological HIV/AIDS profiles for
priority countries;
Gorgas Memorial Institute, University of Alabama: AID is
``urged'' to work closely with the institute, drawing from
the $60 million alloted to address global health threat from
tuberculosis;
Notre Dame's Vector Biology Laboratory Tulane University's
Department of Tropical Medicine: AID is ``urged'' to direct
$2 million to these institutes to establish Centers of
Excellence for malaria research;
Carelift International: AID is ``urged'' to direct $7
million to Carelift International;
University of Missouri-St. Louis International Laboratory
for Tropical Agriculture biotechnology program: AID is
``urged'' to allocate $1 million;
University of California, Davis: AID is ``urged'' to
allocate $1 million for the university to train foreign
scientists;
Tuskegee University, Alabama: AID is ``urged'' to allocate
$1 million to establish a Center to Promote Biotechnology in
International Agriculture at Tuskegee University;
Marquette University, Wisconsin: AID is urged to allocate a
sum of money similar to that received under this bill as
other universities to the Les Aspin Center for Government;
United States Telecommunications Training Institute:
$500,000 ``should'' be made available for the institute;
Habitat for Humanity International: Department of State is
urged to coordinate with AID to ensure the program receives
$1.5 million;
Foundation for Environmental Security and Sustainability:
AID is ``urged'' to allocate $2.5 million to support
environmental threat assessments with interdisciplinary
experts and academicians;
Alfalit International: earmarks $1.5 million to combat
adult illiteracy;
University of San Fransisco: earmarks $1 million for the
Center for Latin American Trade Expansion to assist in the
development of trade promotion initiatives;
Patrick Leahy War Victims Fund: earmarks $12 million;
American Center for Oriental Research: DoS and AID are
``urged'' to allocate $2 million for the center,
headquartered in Amman, Jordan, with operations in Boston,
MA;
Dartmouth Medical School: AID is ``urged'' to allocate
$750,000 for a joint program with the University of Pristina
to help restore educational programs;
Florida State University: AID is ``urged'' to allocate $2
million for a distance learning program;
Synchrotron Light Source Particle Accelerator project
(SESAME): ``the managers intend that $15 million of the funds
made available for Armenia should support this or a
comparable project.'' Berkeley, California, partnership;
University of South Alabama: $1 million to study the
environmental causes of birth defects in Ukraine;
[[Page 24245]]
Ohio Center for Economic Initiatives National Telephone
Cooperative Association, Arlington, VA: $3.2 million for
industrial sector management tours;
University of Alaska/Alaska Pacific University/Alaska
Native regional governments (North Slope Borough and
Northwest Arctic Borough): $20 million for the activities of
these institutions in the Russian Far East;
World Council of Hellenes/United States-Russia Investment
Fund: allocates an unspecified sum to the World Council of
Hellenes and the United States-Russia Investment Fund to
support the Primary Healthcare Initiative in Ukraine,
Georgia, and Russia;
Notre Dame University: The Department of State is directed
to support the university's program of human rights,
democracy, and conflict resolution training in Colombia;
Naval Post-Graduate School, Monterey, California: DoS and
AID are ``urged'' to allocate $150,000 for development of a
peacekeeping initiative at the school;
Jamestown Foundation: $1 million to disseminate information
and support research about China.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in June of this year I expressed my
displeasure with the foreign operations appropriations bill when it
came to the floor of the Senate. The overall funding level was too low,
security assistant accounts were unfunded, burdensome conditions were
placed on contributions to international organizations and an
inadequate appropriation was made for debt relief.
I'm pleased to find that the conference report has corrected some of
these problems in a very satisfactory way. Appropriators have done the
right thing on debt relief, by fully funding the amounts requested. As
the wealthiest nation in the world, there is no excuse for us ignoring
the plight of the world's poorest countries which are laboring under an
untenable debt burden.
I'm also relieved to see that the overall funding level of the bill
comes far closer to the administration's request than the bill that the
Senate passed in June. That bill, to my dismay, was $1.7 billion short
of what was asked for. The conference report is a vast improvement. It
is still some $200 million below what the executive branch has
projected that it will need to undertake foreign operations. Obviously
this is quite a large sum and there is a very serious need for Congress
to reverse the trend of undercutting State Department and Agency for
International Development programs. However the conference report
brings the money requested and the money appropriated substantially
closer.
The bill contains a provision for assistance to Serbia with which I
am in agreement. To unilaterally lift sanctions, or to open up the aid
spigot fully would be both premature and naive. The United States
should adopt the more measured response reflected in this provision.
The language in the conference report sends the right message that we
must condition our aid to the new regime in Serbia until it has clearly
demonstrated that it will cooperate with the Hague War Crimes Tribunal,
respect the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not undermine
the Dayton Accords, and that it will unequivocally renounce the use of
force in Kosovo and take steps to implement policies that reflect a
respect for minorities and rule of law.
Finally Mr. President, let me say that I am also relieved to see that
the level of funding dedicated to the Non-proliferation, Anti-
terrorism, De-mining and Related Programs (NADR) has been increased
substantially. The amount is almost $100 million more than the level in
the Senate passed bill, and slightly higher than the President's
request. Although I would like to see more resources dedicated to the
International Science and Technology Centers program, I welcome the
plus up in the larger account. These programs are a crucial element in
our strategy to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, and combat
terrorism.
One NADR account that received more than the amount requested was
export control assistance, and I truly applaud that. The assistance
that we give to other countries in developing export control laws,
regulations, and enforcement is absolutely crucial from the non-
proliferation standpoint, and it can also help combat international
terrorism. As we plus up that program, however, we must remember to
provide the personnel to implement it. Many of those personnel are in
the Department of Commerce, and more are needed. Unless appropriators
provide elsewhere the requested 7 additional personnel (which
translates into 5 additional FTE in Fiscal Year 2001) for the Bureau of
Export Administration, the additional funds that we make available in
this bill simply will not be implemented as effectively as we would
wish.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Conference report. It has taken some time to
reach an agreement satisfactory to all interested parties, but I
believe that the bill before us goes a long way toward advancing
American interests abroad. Furthermore, this bill contains important
provisions to help poor and vulnerable world citizens.
First of all, I am especially pleased that appropriators have agreed
to fully fund the President's debt relief package for third world
countries, and that language has been included to allow the
International Monetary Fund to release $800 million from the sale of
gold reserves so that the interest earned on the proceeds can be put to
work providing debt forgiveness to heavily indebted poor nations in
Africa and parts of Latin America. The burden of external debt has
become a major impediment to economic development and poverty reduction
in many of the world's poorest countries--a reality I have witnessed
first-hand throughout my travels in Latin America. Until recently, the
United States government and other creditors sought to address this
problem by rescheduling loans, and in some cases, providing limited
debt reduction. Despite such efforts, the cumulative debt of many of
the poorest countries has continued to grow beyond their ability to
repay, and thus, developing economies are struggling. And, even worse,
it is the most vulnerable citizens in these fledgling democracies that
are suffering from this debt. When already poor governments are
investing vast amounts of their budgets in debt maintenance, little
remains for social services for those most in need. As a result, women,
children, and the poor end up suffering and living in want.
Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have supported efforts to
target assistance for programs designed to address the special needs
and concerns of the poor, and I am grateful that we have had some
success in this undertaking. United States assistance programs,
together with other international aid efforts, have made basic human
necessities available to many of those most in need. However, I believe
that the debt reduction initiatives included in the Foreign Operations
bill today build upon that success, and hope that they will
dramatically increase the quality of life for citizens in indebted
countries. We still have a long way to go to ensure that all people
live free of hunger and want, but I think that today we are taking a
dramatic leap forward toward that end.
I am also pleased with the increase in funding for children's health
programs included in this bill. This conference report provides $963
million for child survival and disease programs, $413 million more than
the administration requested. Besides providing funding of $110 million
for UNICEF, this money will be used for immunization programs, prenatal
care, polio eradication, combating illegal trafficking in women and
children, and the establishment of orphanages for displaced children.
My colleagues know of my deep commitment to child welfare both at home
and abroad. Indeed, too often children are overlooked because they do
not vote and have no voice in our political system. I am extremely
happy that children's welfare programs have been so generously funded
in this bill, and hope that this represents a trend that will continue
in the years to come.
Finally, I would like to comment on the family planning provisions in
the bill. I believe the problem of overpopulation is an extremely
important issue and population stabilization is crucial to the well-
being of the planet. Overpopulation threatens to exert tremendous
social, ecological, medical, and economic hardship on much of the
world, and we must take strong action to limit it.
[[Page 24246]]
For families living under the conditions that exist in many
developing nations, family planning is critical. Without it, mothers
have great difficulty spacing their births and limiting the number of
children they bear and, as a result, they suffer the tremendous
physical stress of repeated childbirth--often without the aid of
physicians or midwives. Furthermore, women are not the only ones who
suffer in these cases; their children suffer too. Children in large
families find themselves competing for food with other siblings. As a
result, they suffer from higher incidents of malnutrition and hunger.
Under the compromise included in the conference report, family
planning groups abroad can finally use their own money to provide
family planning services, although the restriction on federal funding
of abortions continues. In addition, Congress has boosted the general
funding available for international family planning from $370 million
to $425 million which will be available for expenditure after February
15, 2001. By helping women avoid pregnancy before conception, this
funding will help mothers in developing countries better plan their
child rearing, and will reduce the number of abortions performed
annually. Moreover, it will ensure that every child born is a wanted
child and will reduce the number of children born to parents who do not
have the resources to care for them.
I believe that this is a good bill. It helps those who need it most,
and provides funding for our international priorities. It includes
money to help end the devastation of AIDS in Africa, assists women,
children, and the poor, and allows governments to finally get out of
the shadow of crushing debt that both economic circumstance and
mismanagement caused to be accrued. On balance, the programs funded in
this appropriations bill advance America's foreign policy and national
security interests. In short, it is good for the people of the world,
and the people of America. When we invest pro-actively in global
stability we encourage peace and commerce, and everybody wins. For
these reasons, I will vote in favor of this bill and encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Subcommittee to express my strong support for
this conference report. I want to extend my congratulations to Senator
Leahy and Senator McConnell as this is clearly one of the best Foreign
Operations bills produced in recent years.
This is a good bill which will advance U.S. interests on many fronts.
This is a good bill for my constituents who are engaged in global
affairs in everything from international trade to humanitarian relief
efforts. This is always a tough bill to finish because it address
several very controversial issues. Unlike years past, however, this
bill is being widely praised by both parties and by the Administration.
Again, that is a tribute to the leaders of our subcommittee who worked
so hard to bridge very difficult issues.
Perhaps the most significant agreement within this bill is the
commitment to fulfill U.S. obligations on debt relief. By providing the
requested $435 million for debt relief, this Congress is sending a
powerful message to the poorest countries in the world. The U.S. and
the international community, by following through on debt relief to the
world's poorest citizens, can give new hope to millions of people. I am
proud to have supported this effort. And I am so proud of my
constituents who embraced campaigns like Jubilee 2000 which made debt
relief an issue no one could ignore.
I want to single out one gentleman in particular who touched so many
of us here on Capitol Hill with his work. The Reverend David Duncombe
from White Salmon, Washington was a heroic champion for debt relief. On
two occasions in the last year, Reverend Duncombe staged hunger strikes
here in Washington, D.C. to demonstrate the effects of starvation on
the human body. Reverend Duncombe visited my office almost every
Wednesday morning when he was in Washington, D.C. He stood before us
all, day after day, in solidarity with the millions of people affected
by this issue. Passage of debt relief is a genuine tribute to people
like David Duncombe who rallied Americans to the debt relief cause all
across our country. I'm proud Americans came together to ensure our
foreign aid dollars will make a difference for poor citizens around the
world.
I am strongly in support of this bill's increased funding for
international family planning. This bill also repeals the global
``Gag'' order which has crippled our international family planning
efforts in previous bills. We know that more and more women in the
developing world are starting businesses and contributing to the
economic health of families. These women want access to family planning
programs and information to build strong, sustainable families. It is
time to take our domestic political debate out of the international
family planning appropriations process once and for all. International
family planning programs help save the lives of women throughout the
world. International family planning in a health issue and should be
treated that way.
This bill is also strong in the area of export promotion. This bill
provides more than $900 million to the Export-Import Bank of the United
States which facilitates job creating exports from throughout our
country. Other trade promotion entities like OPIC and TDA will receive
increased funding under this bill as well. These programs are tangible,
real proof that our foreign aid program generates jobs and economic
opportunity for Americans.
There's so much more in this bill which will benefit America's
interests. We continue our strong program of microcredit lending. Our
commitment to UNICEF and important organizations like the Peace Corps
continues with this bill. And we are providing increased funding to
confront AIDS, tuberculosis and other health threats to the developing
world. I am particularly supportive of the bill's $50 million
contribution to the Global Alliance for Vaccines & Immunizations. The
Foreign Operations Subcommittee has devoted much energy to the GAVI
effort, and I encourage the Senate to continue its involvement in this
promising program.
Our efforts to assist Russia and the former Soviet states as they
continue to struggle with reform are key parts of this bill. Washington
state is particularly interested in the Russian Far East. This bill
funds democracy-building initiatives, economic transition and other
programs for most regions of the former Soviet Union. It's frustrating
work, but I support this assistance because it is important to our
national interest. In other parts of the world, this bill funds human
rights work, environmental protection programs, and other important
democracy-building initiatives. From Burma to Serbia to Latin America,
this bill works to advance America's interests in so many areas.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HUTCHINSON). Who yields time?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, does the Senator from Florida still
have time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back my 30 seconds.
Mr. McCONNELL. Is there any other time remaining under the agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Leahy has 9 minutes. Senator Byrd and
Senator Stevens have 5 minutes each remaining.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier I had mentioned Robin Cleveland and
Tim Rieser. I also want to thank Jennifer Chartrand and Billy Piper on
the Republican side, who are always very helpful and did a superb job.
On the Democratic side, Mark Lippert, who recently joined my staff from
the Democratic Policy Committee, is mastering the Appropriations
Committee process. I saw Jay Kimmitt on the floor earlier of the
committee staff. Not only is he a good friend but a repository of all
[[Page 24247]]
knowledge and the one to whom we can all turn when we need to know just
how to get out of whatever mess we have stumbled into.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank Tim Rieser and Mark Lippert, a
representative of Senator Leahy's staff, Jennifer Chartrand, and, of
course, my longtime associate, Robin Cleveland, and Billy Piper as
well, for their great work on this bill. I thank Senator Leahy. It was
good to work with him again this year.
Having said that, I understand there are 5 minutes that Senator
Stevens has reserved. I am told he is happy for me to yield that time
back.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I also yield
back the time of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia,
Mr. Byrd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me also thank Jay Kimmitt, majority appropriations
staff, for his outstanding work as well. With that, I believe we are
ready.
Mr. President, I will propound a unanimous consent request before we
go to the vote. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to
the vote regarding the foreign operations conference report, to be
followed by 4 minutes of debate with closing remarks with respect to
the pending Feingold amendment to S. 2508 and that vote immediately
occur following those closing remarks, to be followed by a vote in
relation to the continuing resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Therefore, Mr. President, there will be three back-to-
back rollcall votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
Ashcroft), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), and the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) the
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.--
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 27, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Abraham
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Gorton
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--27
Allard
Bayh
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Craig
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Johnson
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
McCain
Miller
Robb
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--8
Akaka
Ashcroft
Burns
Feinstein
Frist
Grams
Helms
Lieberman
The conference report was agreed to.
____________________
COLORADO UTE SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2508.
Pending:
Campbell Amendment No. 4303, in the nature of a substitute.
Feingold Amendment No. 4326 (to Amendment No. 4303), to
improve certain provisions of the bill.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold and I
have 2 minutes to address the Senate before the vote on the motion to
table Feingold amendment No. 4326.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 4326
Mr. FEINGOLD. My amendment is supported by the administration because
it improves the bill. It actually makes the bill comply with Federal
reclamation and environmental laws. It makes it clear that only the
features of the latest version of the Animas-La Plata Project will be
constructed, and the result of that, my colleagues, will be a better
return for the taxpayers than the underlying measure. This is
important.
The Ute and Navajo tribes will have their claims settled and paid
for, even under my substitute, 100 percent by the Federal Government,
but the nontribal water recipients will have to repay their share of
the construction, fish and wildlife mitigation, and recreation costs.
That kind of repayment is only fair. It is what other water users and
other projects such as the California central valley and central Utah
have to pay.
If my colleagues will look at the fact, this is not unprecedented.
This is actually the way other water projects are handled now. The
water users have to pay these fair costs. This amendment not only does
not kill the bill, it just makes sure there is a fair opportunity for
court review. The bill does not undercut; the non-Native American users
actually pay their fair share.
Most importantly, this greatly expanded project that has now been
scaled down to a reasonable level does not somehow get put back into
this large wasteful project. It is both strong in terms of
environmental concern and very strong in terms of the taxpayers.
I hope by supporting this, my colleagues, the Senator from Colorado
could have this water project that he has worked on for so long, but
that it be done in a responsible way which the administration supports.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Bingaman, Senator
Domenici, and Senator Allard in asking the Senate to support our
version of the Animas-La Plata water project by voting to table the
Feingold amendment. In 2 minutes they will not have time to speak, but
I believe I am speaking for them.
Our version of S. 2508 is truly bipartisan. By the way, it is not an
expanded project. This is a much more reduced project. The Republican
Governor and the Democratic attorney general of Colorado strongly
oppose the Feingold amendment. By voting to table the Feingold
amendment, we will leave intact a bipartisan version of S. 2508,
supported by the administration, the States of Colorado and New Mexico,
the Ute tribes of Colorado, the Navajo nation, and rural and municipal
water users of southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico.
In doing so, we will be saving the taxpayers over $400 million by
downsizing the currently planned Animas-La Plata water project. If the
Feingold amendment is not tabled, most of those entities will withdraw
their crucial support for the historic compromise and it will be dead.
If the Feingold amendment is adopted and the compromise collapses,
then our only option for satisfying the tribal water right claims will
be to build the entire huge Animas-La Plata water project as authorized
in 1968.
In addition to killing our bipartisan solution to a regional water
conflict, the Feingold amendment unfairly singles out rural water users
and small municipalities in both of our States to pay higher costs for
their domestic water supplies than the residents of big cities such as
Phoenix and Tucson that are served by the central Arizona and central
Utah projects, which were also authorized in 1968 at the same time the
Animas-La Plata Project was authorized.
As chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, the Feingold
amendment
[[Page 24248]]
sends the wrong message by penalizing a region for participating in
historic water rights settlement. If the Feingold amendment is not
tabled, there will only be losers because the Indians and non-Indians
will be locked into needless and expensive litigation and taxpayers
will have to pay the costs of litigation on both sides. Therefore, I
ask my colleagues to join with me, along with Senators Bingaman,
Domenici, and Allard, to support our bipartisan effort in voting to
table the Feingold amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the next votes in the series be limited
to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I move to table the amendment of the Senator from
Wisconsin, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No.
4326. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
Ashcroft), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), the
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Helms), and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Washington (Mr. Gorton) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms)
would each vote ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 34, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Abraham
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Campbell
Cochran
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kerrey
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--34
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Collins
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
McCain
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--10
Akaka
Ashcroft
Burns
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Helms
Lieberman
Roth
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Campbell
substitute.
Without objection, the Campbell substitute is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4303) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
Ashcroft), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Frist), the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), the
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Helms), and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Washington (Mr. Gorton) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms)
would each vote ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 5, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 282 Leg.]
YEAS--85
Abraham
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--5
Boxer
Chafee, L.
Durbin
Feingold
Lautenberg
NOT VOTING--10
Akaka
Ashcroft
Burns
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Helms
Lieberman
Roth
The bill (S. 2508), as amended, was passed.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President. I rise today to congratulate my
colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, on the
passage of S. 2508, the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.
This important Indian water rights settlement would never have gotten
as far as it has in the Senate without the hard work and dilligence of
Senator Campbell. As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee and a member of the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee, I know how difficult it is to reach consensus on Indian
water rights settlements. It takes a great deal of knowledge,
dedication and downright hard work to get these kinds of bills through
committee and onto the Senate floor and while the work can be
frustrating, the rewards of a job well done are the appreciation of the
Tribe and the water users. Senator Campbell should reap those rewards.
This settlement has been a long time coming and I hope the House of
Representatives will look favorably on the hard work that has been done
here and pass this bill expeditiously so that it will make it to the
White House and be signed into law.
My only regret is that this bill has taken so long to pass the
Senate. Fulfilling this commitment to the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes
and the Colorado water users never should have taken this long. The
settlement agreement was signed in 1986 and now--finally--after 15
years of foot dragging
[[Page 24249]]
and outright obstruction by outside groups, a bill to implement the
agreement passes the Senate. The history of this unfulfilled promise is
not a good one. For the past 15 years, numerous, and duplicative
studies have been required, each of which resulted in substantial
reductions in water to be diverted and stored in the Animas-La Plata
project. The tribes, in order to get a project, have agreed to
substantial modification of their rights under the 1986 agreement and
1988 Settlement Act to make this proposal work. The cost of the project
has been cut by almost two thirds, yet opponents of the project are
still unhappy. I wonder what would make them happy--complete and total
derogation of the Federal Government's obligation to the tribes? I know
Senator Campbell would not let that happen and I would certainly
support him in his efforts.
This bill, as passed today, represents the best hope for the United
States to do right by the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes at this point and
I am pleased to vote for it. I again congratulate Senator Campbell.
____________________
MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the joint resolution by
title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the joint resolution is
read the third time.
The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question
is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft)
the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Frist), the Senator from Washington (Mr. Gorton), the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Grams), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
Roth) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Washington (Mr. Gorton) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would
each vote ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 283 Leg.]
YEAS--87
Abraham
Allard
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--2
Baucus
Leahy
NOT VOTING--11
Akaka
Ashcroft
Burns
Feinstein
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Helms
Jeffords
Lieberman
Roth
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) was passed.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now
be in a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10
minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCES
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of the affected members
of the Senate, I would like to state for the record that if a Member
who is precluded from travel by the provisions of rule 39 is appointed
as a delegate to an official conference to be attended by Members of
the Senate, then the appointment of that individual constitutes an
authorization by the Senate and the Member will not be deemed in
violation of rule 39.
____________________
ACKNOWLEGMENT OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS' 100TH PRESIDING HOUR
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, I have the pleasure to announce that
Senator Jeff Sessions has achieved the 100 hour mark as presiding
officer. In doing so, Senator Sessions has earned his second Golden
Gavel Award.
Since the 1960's, the Senate has recognized those dedicated Members
who preside over the Senate for 100 hours with the golden gavel. This
award continues to represent our appreciation for the time these
dedicated Senators contribute to presiding over the U.S. Senate--a
privileged and important duty.
On behalf of the Senate, I extend our sincere appreciation to Senator
Sessions and his staff for their efforts and commitment to presiding
duties during the 106th Congress.
____________________
VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the
Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on
sensible gun legislation.
Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire.
Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of
those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and
we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session.
In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following
are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year
ago today.
October 25, 1999:
Haeng Eom, 57, Seattle, WA;
Jeong Eom, 60, Seattle, WA;
Jamal Johnson, 18, New Orleans, LA;
Joe Leavitt, 65, Kansas City, MO;
Lanette Macias, 34, Kansas City, MO;
Solomon McGruder, 30, New Orleans, LA;
Irving E. Varon, 51, Seattle, WA;
Alfonso Vilmil, 53, El Paso, TX;
Walter Williams, 35, Nashville, TN; and
Unidentified Male, 16, Chicago, IL.
We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue.
The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to
enact sensible gun legislation now.
____________________
STATUS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND THE INTERNET
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the impact the
Internet is having on database producers and the lack of Intellectual
Property protection we provide to creators of databases, in particular.
This is an issue that deserves the Senate's attention, and I will be
encouraging the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, to
hold hearings early next year to examine this issue in detail.
Intellectual Property laws are about striking a balance between our
need to encourage invention and creativity with a public policy that
discourages the use of monopoly power. Our founding fathers recognized
the importance
[[Page 24250]]
of national patent and copyright laws in Article 1, Section 8 of the
United States Constitution. Similarly, we have a long tradition of
protecting the public from monopolistic abuses through our Antitrust
laws, starting with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
Through our copyright and patent laws, we allow artists and inventors
to have monopolies of limited duration on their creations and
inventions, which can have the short-term effect of limiting access by
consumers. However, these exclusive rights give artists and inventors
incentive to create more--ultimately to the benefit of the public at
large. Our thriving economy and the success of our country's technology
sector is evidence that we have reached an appropriate balance between
exclusive rights and consumer access.
However, the balance has shifted with the emergence of new
technology. Digital technology, for example, allows an individual to
copy huge volumes of data from anonymous sources and then distribute it
almost immediately all over the world through the Internet.
I am very concerned about the utter lack of protection for
individuals and companies who invest substantial resources in gathering
and organizing large volumes of data or information. These databases
were, at one time, protected by our copyright laws under a legal theory
known as ``sweat-of-the-brow.'' This policy protected collections of
information from theft and recognized that significant resources often
were spent in collecting and organizing information. In 1991, the
Supreme Court overturned the sweat-of-the-brow protection and said that
only ``original'' works are covered by copyright law. This ruling,
coupled with the ease of copying and distributing databases over the
Internet, have created a significant problem with theft or ``piracy''
of databases. The creators of stolen databases are usually left with
only piece-meal protections and often have no recourse whatsoever.
I share the concerns of those who believe that database protection
legislation could limit the access of consumers to information, and I
certainly will not support legislation that harms consumers. However,
Mr. President, I believe that this is a case where our policies are out
of balance.
Information is a resource that becomes much more valuable when it is
organized in a coherent way. Database companies devote substantial
resources to collecting, organizing, and maintaining information for
users. Without such investments, vast quantities of data would be
incomprehensible and almost unusable. We must give the companies that
create these databases some sort of exclusive right to enjoy the
benefits of their hard work and investment.
Without granting some exclusive right to database producers,
investment in databases will diminish over time, as more and more
databases are copied and distributed by pirates. Ultimately, the
reliability of information available to consumers over the Internet
would be undermined.
This potential for unreliability has serious real-life implications.
For example, emergency room staff and parents use databases to identify
poisons and their remedies; doctors use them to find specifics about a
medical procedure; farmers use them for weather and soil information;
lawyers use them to find cases and precedents; pharmacists use them to
detect dangerous drug interactions; chemists use them to test new
compounds; workers use them to find new jobs; and home buyers use them
to find the right house. If these databases are not available or are
inaccurate, it is the consumer who loses. As with all of our
intellectual property rights, some small limitations on consumer access
in the short-term will produce significant long-term advantages and
increased access to accurate information.
This is not a new issue for the Senate. Two years ago, in the 105th
Congress, a serious effort was made to pass legislation that would
limit database piracy. Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch hosted
extensive negotiations between all interested parties. Unfortunately, a
compromise on database protection could not be reached. At the last
minute, the database provisions were dropped from the conference report
for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
When we passed the DMCA, I came to the Floor and expressed my
disappointment that we could not reach a consensus on a database
provision. Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch and the Ranking Member
Leahy also expressed their disappointment. I asked, and Senator Hatch
agreed, that the Judiciary Committee address the database bill early in
the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, despite efforts particularly in the
House of Representatives to reach an agreement, conflicts in the
industry remain. We have not been able to consider such a bill during
this Congress. Now, with only a few days left, it appears that we will
not consider database protection at all this year.
I believe that we should start fresh on database legislation early
next year. I ask Chairman Hatch for his commitment that the Judiciary
Committee will hold a hearing on this important matter in the Spring.
For my part, I will do everything I can to draw attention to this
matter. I will continue working toward a solution that protects
databases from piracy while protecting the rights of consumers.
____________________
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING EMPLOYEES
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague,
Senator Helms, in expressing my strong support for this legislation to
benefit international broadcasting employees.
The bill is important for several reasons. A new special immigrant
visa class will be established to cover individuals working in the
United States for the International Broadcasting Bureau or one of the
grantee organizations affiliated with the Broadcasting Board of
Governors. Included among the grantee organizations are the well-
respected Radio Free Asia, the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe.
In creating a special immigrant visa category, we are making a
concerted effort to address the recruitment shortages plaguing these
worthwhile broadcasting organizations. This legislation will help to
attract qualified foreign employees for available positions with the
international broadcasting industry here in the United States.
The mission of the United States with respect to international
broadcasting makes it important for us to be able to attract and retain
a large number of foreign language broadcasters. They must have a
unique combination of journalistic skills, including fluency in various
languages and an in-depth knowledge of the people, history and cultures
of other nations. To carry out its mission, the Broadcasting Board of
Governors and its grantees must employ a minimum of 3,400 broadcasters
and support staff, such as reporters, writers, translators, editors,
producers, announcers, and news analysts.
Historically, the Broadcasting Board of Governors has been unable to
obtain sufficient numbers of U.S. workers with the rare combination of
skills needed for this mission. As a result, we have had to look to
other nations to attract the necessary talent.
No current visa category exists which properly suits the needs of the
international broadcasting industry. Neither the H-1B nor J-1 non-
immigrant visas are appropriate for the Broadcasting Board of Governors
to use as a means to recruit foreign broadcasters and support
personnel. Each of these categories has restrictions which make it
difficult to recruit qualified applicants.
This legislation overcomes these problems by adding a special
immigrant category under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Up to one
hundred immigrant visas will be available each fiscal year for foreign
nationals employed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Spouses and
dependent children will also be able to benefit from this legislation.
This proposal will provide significant assistance for the
international broadcasting industry in meeting its goals and
recruitment needs in providing essential news coverage for many of the
most dangerous regions of the world. The people employed by
organizations like Radio Free Asia, the Voice of
America and Radio Free Europe are exceptionally talented and
courageous. They and their families make substantial sacrifices, and
they put themselves at great personal risk to carry out their important
responsibilities. These dedicated men and women deserve our full
support. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this needed legislation.
____________________
[[Page 24251]]
GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the 106th Congress is about to adjourn
without passing critical legislation to reduce the level of gun
violence in this country.
Over the last years, the American people have been demanding that
their schools, places of worship, and other public places be better
protected from gun violence. Congress had an opportunity to address the
gun violence problem in our country by passing sensible gun laws that
would help ensure that young people or those with criminal backgrounds
do not illegally gain access to firearms. In the end, Congress failed
the American people.
It is very disappointing that Congress refused to act on the issue of
gun violence. Too many senseless shootings have put our sense of safety
in jeopardy. Here are just some of the high profile shootings that took
place during this session of Congress, and the casualties that occurred
as a result.
In the year 1999:
January 14, an office building, Salt Lake City, Utah, one dead, one
injured;
March 18, a law office, Johnson City, Tennessee, two dead;
April 15, a library, Salt Lake City, Utah, three dead, four injured;
April 20, a high school, Littleton, Colorado, 15 dead, 23 injured;
May 20, a high school, Conyers, Georgia, six injured;
June 3, a grocery store, Las Vegas, Nevada, four dead;
June 11, a psychiatrist's office, Southfield, Michigan, three dead,
four injured;
July 4, multiple locations, Illinois and Indiana, three dead, nine
injured;
July 29, two day trading firms, Atlanta, Georgia, 13 dead, 13
injured;
August 5, two office buildings, Pelham, Alabama, three dead;
August 10, a Jewish Community Center, Los Angeles, California, five
injured, and later in the same day, one dead;
September 14, a hospital, Anaheim, California, three dead;
September 15, a church, Fort Worth, Texas, eight dead, seven injured;
November 2 an office building, Honolulu, Hawaii, seven dead;
November 3, a shipyard, Seattle, Washington, two dead, two injured;
December 6, a middle school, Fort Gibson, Oklahoma, four injured; and
December 30, a hotel, Tampa, Florida, five killed, three injured.
In the year 2000:
January 23, a Sikh temple, El Sobrante, California, one dead, one
injured;
February 14, a sandwich shop, Littleton, Colorado, two dead;
February 29, an elementary school, Flint, Michigan, one dead;
March 1, several locations, Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, three dead,
two injured;
March 8, the scene of a fire, Memphis, Tennessee, four dead, two
injured;
March 10, a high school dance, Savannah, Georgia, two dead, one
injured;
March 24, a State office building, Effingham, Illinois, two dead;
April 18, a seniors home, Lincoln Park, Michigan, two dead, one
injured;
April 24, a zoo, Washington, D.C., seven injured;
April 28, several locations, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, five killed,
one injured;
April 28, a restaurant and hotel, Salt Lake City, Utah, two dead,
three injured;
May 11, a middle school, Prairie Grove, Arkansas, two injured;
May 17, a ball park, Ozark, Alabama, two dead, one injured;
May 26, a middle school, Lake Worth, Florida, one dead;
June 25, a basketball court, Chicago, Illinois, seven injured;
August 28, a professor's office, Fayetteville, Arkansas, two dead;
September 7, a sewage lagoon, Bunker, Missouri, two dead, two
injured;
September 24, a high school, outside Seattle, Washington, one
injured;
September 26, a middle school, New Orleans Louisiana, two injured;
October 20, a courthouse, Yreka, California, one dead, two injured;
and
October 23, a pizzeria in New Baltimore, Michigan, one dead.
Gun violence is a critical issue that the majority of Americans care
about deeply. The will of the majority can be frustrated in the short
run, but not in the long run. This issue will not go away. If this
Congress will not pass legislation addressing gun violence in America,
I am confident that another Congress will, and I will continue to work
toward that objective.
____________________
UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARDS YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the volatile
situation in Yugoslavia. Slobodan Milosevic as Yugoslav dictator is
history. The long nightmare is over. The Serbian people have spoken
and, although Milosevic's ultimate fate is still uncertain, Kostunica's
victory marks a sea change in Serbia's current history, a clear choice
for democratic change over a stagnant and morally bankrupt
dictatorship.
As Kostunica works hard to secure and stabilize his fledgling
government, the final outcome is not yet certain. The United States
must not fumble the opportunity to support the new Serbian government
as it navigates a potentially treacherous transition. With Milosevic's
party still controlling the Serb parliament and Milosevic himself still
lurking in the political shadows, we must engage in an open and
constructive dialogue with Kostunica and his allies.
To this end, I welcome the recent move by the administration to lift
some of the sanctions that specifically targeted the Milosevic regime,
namely the flight ban and the oil embargo, while retaining the so-
called ``outer wall'' of sanctions. I also commend the State
Department's decision to send a delegation to Belgrade to discuss the
Kostunica government's assistance needs.
Mr. President, extending a helping hand does not, however, mean
giving Kostunica and his new government a free pass when it comes to
accounting for the terrible crimes of the Milosevic regime. To
unilaterally lift all sanctions, or to open up the aid spigot fully
would be both premature and naive. Instead, the United States should
adopt a more measured response, recognizing as well the fact that a too
forward-leaning or heavy handed policy could risk undermining Kostunica
before he is able to consolidate power. The following immediate steps
would, I believe, help lay the correct groundwork for future
cooperation.
First, the United States must maintain its insistence that Milosevic
be delivered to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes. Anything less
would fatally undermine the International Tribunal.
Second, even as we congratulate Mr. Kostunica and recognize him as an
inestimable improvement over his predecessor, we must emphasize to him
that his democratic credentials alone will not be a sufficient
qualification for Serbia to reenter the international community. A
Kostunica government must fully respect the independence of Bosnia and
Herzegovina and not undermine the Dayton Accords. Kostunica's recent
meeting in Sarajevo with the three members of Bosnia's collective
presidency gives some grounds for optimism. Serbia must also
unequivocally renounce the use of force in Kosovo and take steps to
implement policies that reflect a respect for minorities and rule of
law.
The foreign operations bill for fiscal year 2001 will, in fact,
condition U.S. assistance to Serbia on meeting the above benchmarks. I
support this section of the bill because it is the right thing to do
and the right message to send. But while we should remain firm in our
policy, we must also be flexible in our evaluation, recognizing what
Kostunica is able to do and what he is unable to do while pro-Milosevic
forces
[[Page 24252]]
still wield considerable power in the Serbian government.
Third, the Stability Pact for Southeast Europe must be given a jolt.
Too much time has been wasted on conferences and working groups.
Assistance must begin to flow in the next few months. A long-needed
measure to help the front-line states would be a crash-effort to clear
the Danube River of bombed-out bridges, thereby reopening vital trade
links from Bulgaria and Romania to Western Europe.
Finally, we should strongly encourage the European Union to make good
on this commitment to expand its membership to candidates as soon as
they meet the qualifications. In Southeastern Europe this means Hungary
and Slovenia. Brussels must not squander a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity.
Mr. President, there is another reason I wanted to take the floor
today, one that touches on the future of our commitment to the Balkans
and, indeed, to a stable and secure Europe.
As we continue to work towards a Serbia that will meet the necessary
criteria to rejoin the community of western democracies, it is just as
important to remember why we are engaged in the Balkans in the first
place. This is, after all, an election year, a time when Americans
should rightly question the policies and decisions of the current
administration when making their decision about the next.
U.S. military engagement on the European continent since the end of
World War II has provided the security umbrella under which democracy
and free-market capitalism have been able to develop and flourish. The
Balkans, however, are a world away from that reality, the last
remaining area of instability in Europe. During the last decade several
hundred thousand people have been killed in three bloody wars there.
The NATO-led peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo are designed
to provide the same kind of umbrella as in post-war Western Europe to
allow democracy, civil society, and capitalism to take root and
develop.
Without American leadership, this region would most likely still be
mired in civil war, ethnic cleansing, and ultra-nationalist aggression,
with Milosevic firmly ensconced at the center of it all.
I remember well when in September 1992, reacting to the mass murders
an ethnic cleansing that Milosevic directed in Croatia and Bosnia, I
called for lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia and, six months
later, for hitting the Bosnian Serbs with air strikes. I was joined by
Bob Dole and Joe Lieberman, but for three years ours was a lonely
fight. Finally, after hundreds of thousands killed and massacres in
Srebrenica and Sarajevo that galvanized public opinion, our government
undertook a bombing campaign that led to the Dayton Accords.
Just as that American military action in 1995 served as the catalyst
for change in Bosnia, so did Operation Allied Force in 1999 dash the
myth in Serbia of Milosevic's invincibility. If he had gotten away with
purging Kosovo of most of its ethnic Albanians, those in Serbia who
found Milosevic to be odious would have had no reason to believe that
anything could be done to stop his immoral and ruinous policies.
American leadership has been indispensable for successful military
action in the Balkans. The bombing campaign our government undertook in
1995 led to the Dayton Accords for Bosnia. Operation Allied Force in
1999 forced Milosevic to withdraw his military and paramilitary units
from Serbia, destroying the myth in Serbia of his invincibility. This
leadership goes beyond the purely technical military assets that only
the U.S. can deploy; it also involves intangibles. SFOR in Bosnia and
KFOR in Kosovo contain thousands of highly qualified soldiers from many
countries, but the American troop presence on the ground gave the
mission its ultimate credibility with the Balkan peoples. This fact I
have witnessed firsthand from my many trips to the region.
I am, therefore, alarmed by the recent calls for a unilateral
withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Balkans. Such a radical shift in our
policy, I believe, would have a catastrophic effect not only on the
very real progress we have made in stabilizing both Bosnia and Kosovo,
but on U.S. leadership in Europe and on the Atlantic Alliance as a
whole. U.S. participation on the ground in the Balkans is essential to
our overall leadership in NATO, which is an alliance not only of shared
values, but also of shared risk and responsibility. To begin a
disengagement from the Balkans would not only guarantee the loss of
American leadership in NATO, but also, I fear, lead to the premature
end of Western Europe's commitment to stabilizing the Balkans.
As my colleagues surely know, the vast majority of the troops in SFOR
and KFOR--approximately eighty percent--are European. Yet despite this
minority participation, the United States retains the command of both
Balkan operations in the person of U.S. General Joseph Ralston, the
Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).
Let me be blunt: it is naive to believe that we could retain command
of these operations--or, more importantly, leadership of NATO itself--
if we would cavalierly inform our allies that we were unilaterally
pulling out of the Balkans. It just won't work.
If the U.S. withdrew, like it or not, the future of SFOR and KFOR
would be in jeopardy, and the likelihood of renewed hostilities and
instability beyond the borders of Bosnia and Kosovo would greatly
increase.
We are entering into a very sensitive period for the Balkans, one
that could either strengthen or tear apart the fragile peace that KFOR
and SFOR have helped secure. Local elections will take place in Kosovo
later this month, in Bosnia in November, and in Serbia in December. The
anti-democratic, ultra nationalist forces in the region are now no
doubt biding their time and hoping for a new administration that has
already laid its withdrawal cards on the table.
The assertion that our Balkan operations are a heavy drain on our
resources is also completely off base. Our Bosnia and Kosovo operations
together amount to little more than one percent of our total defense
budget. This hardly constitutes a ``hollowing out'' of the military.
The argument that our commitment to the Balkans is open-ended is
equally misleading. There are detailed military, political, economic,
and social benchmarks set in place. Our ``exit strategy'' is crystal
clear: a secure, stable, democratic Balkans with a free-market economy
that can join the rest of the continent, a Europe ``whole and free.''
These are the ideals for which the greatest generation fought and died.
We dare not embark upon a policy that fails to recognize the most
important international lesson of the twentieth century: America's
national security is inextricably linked to the maintenance of a stable
and peaceful Europe.
To pull the plug on a Balkans policy that has finally begun to yield
real dividends and at the same time to put NATO, the most successful
alliance in history, at risk would jeopardize America's national
security.
It would also betray the brave crowds in Serbia, who have struggled
to open up great possibilities for their country, the Balkans, and all
of Europe. This is no time for Americans to retreat from the struggle
out of ill-conceived, artificially narrow definitions of national
security. The American people have shown time and again that they lack
neither vision nor patience when they are convinced of the importance
of a cause. A Europe unified by democracy is such a cause.
____________________
S. 1854, THE 21ST CENTURY ACQUISITION REFORM AND IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF
2000
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I was pleased that last Thursday the Senate
unanimously passed S. 1854, the ``21st Century Acquisition Reform and
Improvements Act of 2000.'' I originally introduced the bill last year
with Senators DeWine and Kohl, and we are hopeful that it will be
enacted into law this year. I want to express my thanks to Senator
Leahy, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, and to Senators
DeWine and Kohl, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Antitrust
Subcommittee, respectively, for
[[Page 24253]]
their hard work and cooperation in developing and passing the
bipartisan proposal that the Senate approved. The reforms that will be
put in place upon enactment of this legislation are long overdue.
Businesses, both small and large, as well as the antitrust enforcement
agencies, have much to gain by its enactment.
As my colleagues know, the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements
Act of 1976 requires companies contemplating a merger or acquisition to
file a pre-merger notification with the Antitrust Division or the
Federal Trade Commission if the size of the companies and the size of
the proposed transaction are greater than certain monetary thresholds.
These monetary thresholds, however, are seriously outdated. They have
not been changed--even for inflation--since the legislation was enacted
more than two decades ago.
Because these monetary thresholds are obsolete, businesses today
often are required to notify the Antitrust Division and the FTC of
proposed transactions that simply do not raise competitive issues. As a
result, the agencies are required to expend valuable resources
performing needless reviews of transactions that were never intended to
be reviewed. In short, current law senselessly imposes a costly
regulatory and financial burden upon companies, particularly small
businesses, and needlessly drains the resources of the agencies.
Because of the unnecessarily low monetary thresholds, current law fails
to reflect the true economic impact of mergers and acquisitions in
today's economy.
In addition, after a pre-merger notification is filed, the Hart-
Scott-Rodino Act imposes a 30-day waiting period, during which the
proposed transaction may not close and the Antitrust Division or the
FTC conducts an antitrust investigation. Prior to the expiration of
this waiting period, the agency investigating the transaction may make
a ``second request''--a demand for additional information or
documentary material that is relevant to the proposed transaction.
Unfortunately, many second requests require the production of an
enormous volume of materials, many of which are unnecessary for even
the most comprehensive merger review. Complying with such second
requests has become extraordinarily burdensome, often costing companies
in excess of $1 million. Second requests also extend the waiting period
for an additional 20 days, a period of time that does not begin to run
until the agencies have determined that the transacting companies have
``substantially complied'' with the second request. This procedure
results in many lawful transactions being unnecessarily delayed for
extended periods of time, causing an enormous strain on the businesses,
their employees, and their shareholders.
I am pleased that this legislation will rectify many of the problems
with the 1976 Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. First, the legislation increases
the size-of-transaction threshold from $15 million to $50 million,
effectively exempting mergers and acquisitions that would not pose any
competitive concerns from the Act's notification requirement. Such
mergers make up over half of all transactions reported in 1999.
Therefore, this legislation provides significant regulatory and
financial relief for all businesses, particularly small and medium-
sized ones. In addition, the legislation indexes the threshold for
inflation, so that the problem of an expanding economy outgrowing the
statute's monetary threshold will not recur.
In addition to providing regulatory and financial relief for
companies, another purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the
Antitrust Division and the FTC efficiently allocate their finite
resources to those transactions that truly warrant antitrust scrutiny.
To that end, one of its main objectives is to achieve a more effective
and efficient merger review process by eliminating unnecessary burden,
costly duplication and undue delay. In order to accomplish this
objective, this legislation directs the Assistant Attorney General and
the FTC to conduct an internal review and implement reforms of the
merger review process, including the designation of a senior official
for expedited review of appeals regarding the scope of and compliance
with second requests. Fortunately, these reforms will be implemented
quickly because, under this legislation, the Assistant Attorney General
and the FTC will have 120 days to issue the guidelines and make the
necessary changes to their regulations and policy documents to
implement the reforms, and they must report back to Congress within 180
days.
This legislation sets forth reforms to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act that
are long overdue. It provides significant regulatory and financial
relief for businesses, while ensuring that transactions that truly
deserve antitrust scrutiny will continue to undergo review. Again, I
thank my colleagues who joined me in supporting passage of this
legislation. In the waning hours of this Congressional Session, it is
my intention to see this non-controversial consensus legislation
enacted into law this year, and I will seek its attachment to one of
the remaining ``must-pass'' vehicles.
Finally, I would like to recognize the hard work and efforts of
several staff members of the Judiciary Committee who were instrumental
in the successful passage of this legislation. On my staff, I
particularly would like to thank the Committee's Chief Counsel and
Staff Director, Manus Cooney, the lead counsels who worked on this
measure, Makan Delrahim, Rene Augustine, and Kyle Sampson, and legal
fellow Thadd Prisco. On Senator Leahy's staff, I would like to
recognize the professional skills and input of the Minority Chief
Counsel, Bruce Cohen, and the Minority General Counsel, Beryl Howell.
On the Antitrust Subcommittee, I would like to thank Peter Levitas and
Mark Grundvig, who are Senator DeWine's able counsels, as well as Jon
Leibowitz and Seth Bloom, counsels to Senator Kohl, for their tireless
efforts and input. Without the assistance and hard work of these loyal
public servants, the important reforms in this legislation would not
have been possible. Thank you.
____________________
THE BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT OF 2000
Mr. LEAHY. I am pleased that the House of Representatives tonight
approved the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000, S. 2413,
and sent it to the president for his signature. President Clinton has
already endorsed this legislation to support our nation's law
enforcement officers and is eager to sign it into law.
Senator Campbell and I introduced this bipartisan bill on April 12,
2000. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed our bill unanimously on
June 29. For the past four months, we have been urging passage of the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000. The Senate finally
passed our bipartisan bill on October 11, 2000 by unanimous consent.
I want to thank Senators Hatch, Schumer, Kohl, Thurmond, Reed,
Jeffords, Robb, Reid, Sarbanes, Bingaman, Ashcroft, Edwards, Bunning,
Cleland, Hutchison, Abraham and Grams for cosponsoring and supporting
our bipartisan bill.
To better protect our Nation's law enforcement officers, Senator
Campbell and I introduced the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of
1998. President Clinton signed our legislation into law on June 16,
1998, pubic law 105-181. That law created a $25 million, 50 percent
matching grant program within the Department of Justice to help state
and local law enforcement agencies purchase body armor for fiscal years
1999-2001.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more than 40
percent of the 1,182 officers killed by a firearm in the line of duty
since 1980 could have been saved if they had been wearing body armor.
Indeed, the FBI estimates that the risk of fatality to officers while
not wearing body armor is 14 times higher than for officers wearing it.
In its two years of operation, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Program funded more than 325,000 new bulletproof vests for our nation's
police officers, including more than 536 vests for Vermont police
officers with federal
[[Page 24254]]
grant funds of $140,253 for Vermont law enforcement agencies. More
information about the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program is
available at the program's web site at http://vests.ojp.gov/. The
entire process of submitting applications and obtaining federal funds
is completed through this web site.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 builds on the
success of this program by doubling its annual funding to $50 million
for fiscal years 2002-2004. It also improves the program by
guaranteeing jurisdictions with fewer than 100,000 residents receive
the full 50-50 matching funds because of the tight budgets of these
smaller communities. In addition, under the Leahy-Campbell floor
amendment to this bill, the purchase of stab-proof vests will be
eligible for grant awards to protect corrections officers and sheriffs
who face violent criminals in close quarters in local and county jails.
More than ever before, police officers in Vermont and around the
country face deadly threats that can strike at any time, even during
routine traffic stops. Bulletproof vests save lives. It is essential
the we update this law so that many more of our officers who are
risking their lives everyday are able to protect themselves.
In the last Congress, we created the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Program in part in response to the tragic Drega incident along
the Vermont and New Hampshire border. On August 19, 1997, Federal,
State and local law enforcement authorities in Vermont and New
Hampshire had cornered Carl Drega, after hours of hot pursuit. This
madman had just shot to death two New Hampshire state troopers and two
other victims earlier in the day. In a massive exchange of gunfire with
the authorities, Drega lost his life.
During that shootout, all federal law enforcement officers wore
bulletproof vests, while some state and local officers did not. For
example, Federal Border Patrol Officer John Pfeifer, a Vermonter, who
was seriously wounded in the incident. If it was not for his
bulletproof vest, I would have been attending Officer Pfeifer's wake
instead of visiting him, and meeting his wife and young daughter in the
hospital a few days later. I am relieved that Officer John Pfeifer is
doing well and is back on duty today.
The two New Hampshire state troopers who were killed by Carl Drega
were not so lucky. They were not wearing bulletproof vests. Protective
vests might not have been able to save the lives of those courageous
officers because of the high-powered assault weapons used by this
madman. We all grieve for the two New Hampshire officers who were
killed. Their tragedy underscore the point that all of our law
enforcement officers, whether federal, state or local, deserve the
protection of a bulletproof vest. With that and lesser-known incidents
as constant reminders, I will continue to do all I can to help prevent
loss of life among our law enforcement officers.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 will provide state
and local law enforcement agencies with more of the assistance they
need to protect their officers. Our bipartisan legislation enjoys the
endorsement of many law enforcement organizations, including the
Fraternal Order of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association. In my
home State of Vermont, the bill enjoys the strong support of the
Vermont State Police, the Vermont Police Chiefs Association and many
Vermont sheriffs, troopers, game wardens and other local and state law
enforcement officials.
Since my time as a State prosecutor, I have always taken a keen
interest in law enforcement in Vermont and around the country. Vermont
has the reputation of being one of the safest states in which to live,
work and visit, and rightly so. In no small part, this is due to the
hard work of those who have sworn to serve and protect us. And we
should do what we can to protect them, when a need like this one comes
to our attention.
Our Nation's law enforcement officers put their lives at risk in the
line of duty everyday. No one knows when danger will appear.
Unfortunately, in today's violent world, even a traffic stop may not
necessarily be ``routine.'' Each and every law enforcement officer
across the nation deserves the protection of a bulletproof vest.
Mr. President, I look forward to President Clinton signing this life-
saving legislation into law.
____________________
FAILURE TO PASS AN INTERSTATE WASTE BILL
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, one of the many items that the Senate failed
to address during this Congress is legislation that would allow the
states to protect themselves from unwanted out-of-state garbage. Three
separate bills were offered in the Senate on this issue and each had
merit, at least as a point of departure. In fact two of the bills
incorporated elements that easily passed the Senate a few years ago.
The Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on these
bills but failed to move any of the bills forward. This is more than
disappointing. For a state like Virginia that is now importing over 7
million tons of municipal solid waste each year, with no way to limit
the growth of this unwanted import, it is important that the committee
and the full Senate act on legislation.
Seven million tons of imported solid waste represents 280,000 truck
loads of waste moving into the Commonwealth of Virginia each year. The
traffic this generates is reason alone to authorize additional state
controls. But there are other reasons. Cheap landfill disposal due to
an over abundance of capacity, has made us less vigilant about
recycling. And although new federal landfill standards protect our
environment better than the old standards, today's landfills are much
larger than yesterdays, and we are not yet certain that all the
engineering improvements we have made are enough. We may not know if
these new landfills leak for a few more years.
Transporting waste hundreds of miles for disposal is also a senseless
use of diesel fuel, and when we are already facing a shortage we should
seek to conserve our fuel resources. We are misallocating fuel that
could be used to heat homes this winter and using it to hall trash up
and down the east coast. I understand from the Federal Highway
Administration that the large trucks used to transport waste get about
6.1 miles per gallon. An out of state delivery of trash to Virginia
landfills can amount to 680 miles round trip and 68 gallons of gas. If
only half the trips to Virginia are that long, over 500,000 gallons of
diesel fuel will be used to ship waste several hundred miles. This is a
waste.
During this Congress, I introduced one interstate waste bill and co-
sponsored two others, and if members of the Senate propose other ways
to deal with this problem, I am more than willing to work with them to
develop something that is workable for all parties. But at this time
unless a state chooses, as some have, to simply stop siting land
disposal capacity, they lose all control in terms of how long that
capacity will last and what kind of traffic it will receive.
When we come back next year I will try again to move legislation. I
will meet with the exporting States and I will continue to work toward
a goal of wiser use of our resources, and that includes recycling,
minimizing waste in the first place and certainly finding a way to
dispose of it without moving half way across the country.
____________________
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF SOLID WASTE
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is outrageous that another Congress has
passed without the enactment of legislation which would resolve the
problem of the interstate transportation of solid waste. The people
should not be dumped on any longer. They should have some control over
their own jurisdictions and over their own land. It is up to us to give
them that authority. I just heard that Toronto Canada is thinking about
sending its waste to Michigan and the people of Michigan have nothing
to say about it.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, under the Commerce Clause of
[[Page 24255]]
the Constitution, unless Congress acts, states and municipalities are
powerless to stop trash from being brought into their jurisdictions--
powerless to protect their citizens' safety, the environment and their
quality of life. So our states and municipalities rely on us to pass
this protective legislation, and we let them down--again. The Senate
has expressed its will on this issue over and over again--A majority of
Senators support this legislation. We passed it by an overwhelming vote
of 94-6. But the House has not acted. There are a few people over there
who oppose it who have managed to displace the will of what appears to
be a clear majority of House Members.
What will it take? The problem is getting worse. Total interstate
waste shipments continue to rise and there is a finite amount of
landfill capacity available. Michigan, my State, imports over 12
percent of all of the solid waste it disposes of in landfills. Michigan
counties and townships have plans for waste disposal. They have
invested in it. They have made significant commitments to waste
reduction and recycling. They have spent a lot of money on these
investments to dispose of their waste locally. Those plans and those
good faith investments are totally undermined when contracts to bring
in waste from other states and countries are entered into without
consideration by State, county, or local governments of the impact of
those contracts for importing waste into those areas. When you import
waste in that way, without consideration of plans, and without
consideration of the efforts that local governments have made to
dispose of their own waste, it totally disrupts those efforts and those
expenditures. It is not right. States and local governments have a
right to do that planning and to make those investments in order to
dispose of their own waste and, should they see fit, not to see their
own plans displaced by the import of waste from other places.
I want to commend all the Senators who have been involved in this
effort for so many years. Our previous vote of 96 to 4 shows that this
truly is a bipartisan effort and it will continue to be.
Our States are counting on us to give them the authority to protect
their citizens and the environment. I can assure you that, when
Congress returns in January, I will be ready to fight this battle again
until we pass legislation to prevent our states from being dumping
grounds.
____________________
RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF 2000
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, just before the August recess, the Senate
passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000, S. 2869. I had some serious concerns about this bill as
originally introduced. As my colleagues know, the distinguished
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch and my
distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, came up
with a bipartisan compromise that addressed many of the concerns I had
about the initial bill. Specifically, I was concerned that the bill
would have unintentionally impeded the ability of states and localities
to protect the health and safety of children in a variety of ways. I am
relieved that the new Senate version has a much more limited scope.
Because the bill that was passed applies only to zoning decisions,
landmark designations and institutionalized persons, it will not have
any impact on child welfare systems, including the ability of states
and localities to protect the health and safety of children. I see the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts on the floor and I would ask
my colleague, as one of the authors of this new legislation, if my
understanding of this legislation correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Ohio is correct.
Mr. DeWINE. Since the definition of ``land use regulation'' is
limited to ``a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a
law,'' am I also correct in understanding that this legislation will
not affect the ability of states and localities to enforce fire codes,
building codes, and other measures to protect the health and safety of
people using the land or buildings, such as children in childcare
centers, schools, or camps run by religious organizations?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, the Senator from Ohio is correct.
Mr. DeWINE. Am I also correct that the legislation will not affect
civil rights laws that protect young people?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend and colleague from Massachusetts for
clarifying these points, and for working to pass legislation that does
not compromise the health and safety of children and their families.
____________________
RECORD THIRD QUARTER NET PROFITS FOR BIG OIL
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to announce
that Big Oil is beginning to release its third quarter profit reports
and while the news is great for investors, it's not so great for
American consumers. As American families have been paying sky-high
prices at the gas pump and are bracing for record-high home heating
costs this winter, the oil industry has been savoring phenomenal
profits. Something is wrong when working families are struggling to pay
for basic transportation and home heat while Big Oil rakes in obscene
amounts of cash by the barrel.
The overall net income for major petroleum companies more than
doubled in the third quarter of 2000 relative to the third quarter of
1999. Let me illustrate the phenomenal profits of the oil industry for
the past year when gasoline prices soared and heating oil stocks fell.
In the third quarter of 2000, Chevron Corporation reported net
profits of $1.53 billion, Exxon Mobil Corporation reported net profits
of $4.29 billion, and Texaco reported net profits of $798 million.
Compared to the third quarter of 1999, the profits in the third quarter
of 2000 increased 163 percent for Chevron, 96 percent for Exxon Mobil,
and 106 percent for Texaco. I ask unanimous consent that a chart of
these statistics be printed in the Record.
Not surprisingly, these multi-million and even multi-billion dollar
profits are making record profits. Exxon Mobil executive Peter Townsend
is quoted as saying: ``We've got a lot of cash around here. It's coming
in pretty fast, flying through the door.'' And according to Fadel
Gheit, an analyst with Fahnestock & Company: ``The fourth quarter could
beat the third.''
There is no doubt that Big Oil reaped record profits while American
consumers and small business owners dug deeper into their pockets to
pay for soaring gasoline prices. And more record profits for Big Oil at
the expense of consumers and small business owners are expected this
winter when heating costs go through the roof. Mr. President, that is
outrageous.
Even more disturbing are the recent press reports that the major oil
companies are not using their record profits to boost production and
lower future prices, but are instead cutting back on exploration and
production. Listen to this from a report in the Wall Street Journal:
``Exploration and production expenditures at the so-called super
majors--Exxon Mobil Corp., BP Amoco PLC, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group--
fell 20 percent to $6.91 billion in the first six months of the year
from a year earlier. . . .''
The investment firm UBS Warburg in London estimated this month that
the surplus cash of the top 10 global energy companies will total $40
billion this year and grow to $130 billion by the end of 2004. The
companies, Warburg predicts, will use about two-thirds of the surplus
to repurchase stock to bolster market price, and one-third to reduce
debt. Indeed, last week Texaco and Chevron agreed to merge with Chevron
paying $35.1 billion to acquire Texaco.
Well I for one have had enough of Big Oil making record profits at
the expense of the working families and the small business owners who
pay the oil bills, live by the rules and struggle mightily when fuel
and heating costs skyrocket.
[[Page 24256]]
On September 27, 2000, I introduced S. 3118, the Windfall Oil Profits
For Heating Assistance Act of 2000. My legislation imposes a windfall
profits assessment on the oil industry to fund heating help for
consumers and small business owners across America.
In true arrogance to the needs of Americans struggling to heat their
homes, John Felmy of the American Petroleum Institute has publicly
stated: ``The profits aren't owned by consumers, they're owned by the
shareholders. The companies have to do what's appropriate for owners of
the enterprise.''
The oil industry is made up of corporations formed under the laws of
the United States. These oil industry corporations have a
responsibility to the public good as well as their shareholders. To
reap record windfall profits and then cut back on exploration and
production to further increase future profits is poor corporate
citizenship and an abuse of the public trust by these oil industry
corporations and their executives.
In response to the energy crisis of the 1980s, Congress enacted the
Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980. This windfall profits tax,
which was repealed in 1988, funded low-income fuel assistance and
energy and transportation programs.
Similar to the early 1980s, American families again face an energy
crisis of high prices and record oil company profits. This past June,
gasoline prices hit all-time highs across the United States, with a
national average of $1.68 a gallon, according to the Energy Information
Administration. This winter, the Department of Energy estimates that
heating oil inventories are 36 percent lower than last year with
heating oil inventories in New England estimated to be 65 percent lower
than last year. In my home state of Vermont, energy officials estimate
heating oil costs will jump to $1.31 per gallon, up from $1.19 last
winter and 80 cents in 1998.
Given the oil industry's record windfall profits in the face of this
energy crisis, it is time for Congress to act and again limit the
windfall profits of Big Oil. My bill would do just that and dedicate
the revenue generated from this windfall profits adjustment to help
working families and small business owners with their heating oil costs
this winter.
Specifically, the Windfall Oil Profits For Heating Assistance Act of
2000 would impose a 100 percent assessment on windfall profits from the
sale of crude oil. My legislation builds on the current investigation
by the Federal Trade Commission into the pricing and profits of the oil
industry. The bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to expand this
investigation to determine if the oil industry is reaping windfall
profits.
The revenue collected from windfall oil industry profits, under my
legislation, would be dedicated to two separate accounts in the
Treasury for the following: 75 percent of the revenues to fund heating
assistance programs for consumers such as the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP), weatherization and other energy efficiency
programs; and 25 percent of the revenues to fund heating assistance
programs for small business owners.
American consumers and small business owners continue to pay sky-high
gasoline prices and home heating oil costs are expected to hit an all-
time high this winter while U.S. oil corporations reap more record
profits. It is time for Congress to restore some basic fairness to the
marketplace. It is time for Congress to transfer the windfall profits
from Big Oil to fund heating oil assistance for working families.
I urge my colleagues to support the Windfall Oil Profits For Heating
Assistance Act of 2000.
Mr. President, I ask that the chart to which I referred, be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
RECORD PROFITS FOR BIG OIL--THIRD QUARTER PROFITS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd quarter change
Company ---------------------------------- (in
1999 2000 percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chevron..................... $582 million... $1.52 billion.. 163
Exxon Mobil................. 2.19 billion... 4.29 billion... 96
Texaco...................... 387 million.... 798 million... 106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________
RETIREMENT OF TINKER ST. CLAIR
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this
opportunity to pay tribute to Tinker St. Clair, who is retiring at the
end of this year after 21 years of outstanding service to the Senate as
doorkeeper.
Tinker goes back many many years with the Kennedy family. In a sense,
I inherited Tinker from my brothers. At the time of the 1960
Presidential campaign, Tinker was active in Democratic Party politics
in McDowell County in the heart of coal country in West Virginia.
Tinker supported Jack in the key West Virginia Presidential Primary
that year, and he campaigned effectively for my brother throughout
southern West Virginia. Jack won a dramatic victory in that primary,
and it put him solidly on the road to the White House. So it's fair to
say that the New Frontier was born right there in West Virginia, and
Tinker St. Clair was very much a part of that victory.
Tinker was also there for my brother Robert Kennedy in his
Presidential campaign in 1968.
For the past 21 years in the Senate, Tinker has been a great friend
of mine as well, and a great friend of many other Senators on both
sides of the aisle.
Day in and day out on the Senate floor, Tinker's welcoming smile and
wonderful personality have warmed our hearts and minds. He is often
here with us, sitting in the back of the Chamber, listening intently to
our debates, offering an encouraging word when we arrive and when we
finish speaking, reminiscing about past days in the Senate and past
campaigns in West Virginia, telling us with pride about his children,
his grandchildren, and in recent years, his great-grandchildren.
When Tinker leaves us this year, he will leave a place in our hearts
that will be impossible to fill. But as he said the other day, he feels
it is time, as the West Virginia mountaineer he's always been, to sit
on the porch and enjoy his family.
As this session of Congress comes to an end, I express my warmest
wishes to Tinker for a long and happy and healthy retirement. He has
surely earned it. He has served West Virginia well, he has served the
Senate well, and he has served the Nation well, and we will miss him
very very much.
____________________
PRESIDENT KIM DAE JUNG AND THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the
President of South Korea, Kim Dae Jung, for winning the Nobel Peace
Prize. This is a man who truly deserves this honor, as there are few
men in the world today who have worked so tirelessly for democracy and
peace in East Asia. Like so many of the outstanding men of our time,
President Kim's life reads something like a novel, from his early
childhood as a farmer's son on a small Korean island, to his criticism
of the Japanese colonial rule, to his constant fight against
dictatorship in South Korea, to his relentless pursuit of a
constructive engagement policy with North Korea. No part of his path to
the present has been easy, and, he came perilously close to losing his
life on several occasions. The stories that are told about his near
death experiences at the hands of the military regime in South Korea,
and the intervention by the United States to save his life, are
legendary in his country. He has been accused of nearly every possible
political crime, from subversion to treason. But he has persisted and
has succeeded, this in spite of the formidable odds against him.
Significantly, South Korea has achieved its status as one of the
world's most stable democratic countries because of his efforts, and it
is appropriate he should be recognized by the Norwegian Nobel Committee
for the impact he has made over the years.
As my colleagues know, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright arrived
in North Korea earlier this week, her stated goal being to improve
relations
[[Page 24257]]
with that country. This follows the trip to North Korea by President
Kim, the trip to this country by North Korean Vice Marshal Jo Myong
Rok, and the normalization of relations between North Korea and both
Great Britain and Germany--all of which occurred in the last six months
and are a direct result of the ``sunshine policy'' that President Kim
introduced when he entered office. Needless to say, since the
initiation of the policy he has been roundly condemned by government
officials and analysts alike as an idealist who did not entirely
understand what was at stake in the region. Recall it was only in June
of 1999 that North and South Korea fought a battle off the South Korean
coast. But President Kim has persevered and, as a result, has brought
the region closer to peace and stability than any time in the last
fifty years. This is no small accomplishment.
There is no doubt that South Korea has some serious challenges to
face in the immediate future. Looking at the South Korean economy,
although it has recovered substantially from the 1997 financial crisis,
it is again showing signs of instability. The reforms that were
considered necessary by President Kim for a sustained transformation--
financial, corporate, and governmental--have not yet fully occurred,
raising the possibility of another crisis down the road. It is also
true that most of the rapprochement that has taken place between South
Korea and North Korea is symbolic in nature, leading to hard questions
concerning what concrete actions will be undertaken to increase
cooperation and decrease tensions in the region.
But hopefully the Nobel Peace Prize will provide President Kim with
additional leverage for the policies his country has been pursuing, and
through greater national and international consensus, he will find a
path to the desired end of peace and prosperity in the region. There is
no doubt that remarkable steps forward have been taken by all those
involved, and I remain optimistic that change can occur. Before she
left North Korea, Secretary Albright stated that there were ``many
towering peaks ahead'' in the process. This is, no doubt, true.
Pragmatic and reciprocal confidence-building mechanisms will be
required to convince all the parties involved that the peace process
should move forward. But it is also true that the prospects for
cooperation are brighter than ever before. And much of this progress
can be directly attributed to President Kim.
So, Mr. President, I take this opportunity to congratulate President
Kim for his selection by the Nobel Committee, to celebrate those things
that he has accomplished in his life, and to wish him much success in
the days, months, and years that follow.
____________________
THE LEGACY OF GUNN McKAY
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, all of us who knew him during his decade of
service in Congress, and others who knew him only by reputation, mourn
the recent passing of Gunn McKay.
Gunn McKay was a leading member of the Committee on Appropriations in
the other body and chaired the Subcommittee on Military Construction.
He was effective. He knew how to lead and how to legislate. His voice
was an influential voice on energy issues and military readiness and
Federal land policy. And he knew how to bring people together to get
things done.
It was not politics that motivated Gunn McKay in his public service;
it was people. He thrived in being able to help people get and keep
good-paying jobs. He deeply, unequivocally believed that there is a
role for government, through programs like Medicare and Social Security
and in other ways, in helping those who struggle.
Gunn achieved all of the good he accomplished in life through a deep-
down and infectious optimism about people and about the future. More
than being a great public servant, he was a good man. Those who worked
with him will tell you that Gunn did not have a mean bone in his body.
When he left public life Gunn and his wife, Donna, devoted much of
their time to church service abroad.
The Nation and its Congress are better for the fact that Gunn McKay
served here. And so, certainly, are the people of his beloved State of
Utah.
I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Salt Lake Tribune
about Gunn McKay be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Salt Lake Tribune]
Utah Demo Gunn McKay Dies at 75
(By Judy Fahys)
K. Gunn McKay, the Weber County farmer's son and Democrat
who served five terms in Congress in the 1970s and earned
bipartisan praise for his down-home warmth and political
skill, died Friday night from cancer. He was 75.
``Tell the facts and leave the right impression,'' McKay
used to tell his young congressional aides, and that credo
served the former teacher through a career in state and
national politics and on Mormon mission assignments in
Europe, Africa and Asia.
``Unassuming'' and ``determined'' are the words Barry
McKay, a Salt Lake City lawyer, used to describe his eldest
brother. He recalled Friday how Gunn McKay spent most of one
Christmas, the day he returned home from a church mission in
England, helping neighbors start their frozen cars.
Political scientist J.D. Williams called McKay ``the
personification of Huntsville,'' McKay's hometown in the
Ogden Valley.
``He talked with a rural Utah slang when he wanted to,''
said Williams. ``He had a beautiful smile and demeanor, and
he was everybody's friend.''
``You didn't have to guess what he meant,''said former Sen.
Jake Garn, a Republican who served with the Democrat in
Congress and lived near him outside the nation's capital.
``He was extremely well-liked,'' said Garn, whose U.S.
Senate service overlapped with six years of McKay's time in
Washington. ``Whether you agreed with him or not, you could
trust him. He would always follow through.''
McKay even converted David L. Bigler, a Utah historian and
former public-relations director for Geneva Steel, then known
as U.S. Steel. Bigler switched political parties to raise
money for McKay's first campaign.
``He really did care for people,'' said Bigler, who was
struck at once by McKay's integrity. ``All politicians say
that, but few of them do. He did.''
Politics may have been in McKay's blood. His grandfather,
Angus, was House Speaker in Utah's first Legislature. And his
father, James, had run for the 1st Congressional District
seat that McKay would win 35 years later, in 1970.
And unlike most emerging politicians, name recognition was
never a problem for McKay, whose father was a cousin to one
of the most beloved presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, Huntsville-born David O. McKay. The
church leader died just a year before his relative took the
oath for his first term in Congress.
The eldest of eight children, McKay was a three-sport star
at Weber High School before serving in the U.S. Coast Guard
during World War II and on an LDS mission to England the
following three years. He later graduated from Utah State
University with a degree in education.
He was teaching history in Ogden City Schools and running a
deli when he was appointed to the first of two terms in the
Utah Legislature.
From there, he was tapped to be chief of staff to
Democratic Gov. Calvin L. Rampton.
During his five terms in Washington from 1971 to 1981,
McKay built a reputation for being one of the half-dozen most
conservative Democrats in a Congress long controlled by
Democrats.
He fought federally funded abortions and backed the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision to outlaw prayer in schools. He
pushed the Central Utah Project, military appropriations that
bolstered Hill Air Force Base and other Utah installations,
``gasohol'' and a balanced-budget law. He also fought higher
fees for ranchers who leased federal range.
McKay's powers of persuasion helped land him a seat on the
coveted Appropriations Committee upon entering Congress--the
first ever for a Utahn.
``Most people have to wait [10 years] to be considered,''
said Jim McConkie, a Salt Lake City lawyer who served on
McKay's congressional staff for five years.
McConkie recalled how McKay used his influential role as
chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee to become
close to President Carter, who invited McKay to Camp David a
few times.
``But he never lost his roots,'' said McConkie. ``He could
see to the heart of an issue.''
Nothwithstanding his Washington successes, McKay lost his
seat to Republican Rep. Jim Hansen in the Ronald Reagan
landslide of 1980.
In 1986, when McKay unsuccessfully challenged Hansen for
his old seat he shared his view of Utah voters, one that
contemporary Utah Democrats have taken to heart.
``Utah voters are independent thinkers,'' McKay told The
Salt Lake Tribune. ``They
[[Page 24258]]
are concerned with ineffective federal policies and lack of
congressional action on issues which are increasingly having
a negative impact on their lives.''
The year after he left Congress, McKay went on an LDS
mission to Scotland with his wife Donna. Later, the couple
was called to serve in Kenya, where McKay found himself a
block away from the embassy bombing in 1998.
They also served in Singapore and Malaysia. McKay took ill
while serving in Pakistan.
The McKays, who married in 1950, had 10 children, 40
grandchildren and one great-grandchild.
Said former Utah First Lady Norma Matheson: ``He loved
being in public service, and it showed.''
____________________
CONGRESSMAN MEEHAN'S ELOQUENT TRIBUTE TO HIS FATHER
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us who know and admire our
distinguished colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman
Marty Meehan, were saddened to learn of his father's death earlier this
month.
At the funeral service for his father on October 14 in Lowell,
Massachusetts, Congressman Meehan delivered an eloquent tribute to his
father that deeply touched all of those who were present. He described
in vivid terms and in many wonderful stories the lifelong love and
support that Mr. Meehan gave to his family.
I believe that Congressman Meehan's moving eulogy to his father will
be of interest to all of us in Congress, and I ask unanimous consent
that it may be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Eulogy of Martin T. Meehan
(By U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan, October 14, 2000)
On behalf of my mother, brothers and sisters, my Aunt
Katherine and Uncle John, my cousins, and my entire family, I
want to thank all of you for joining us today to help
celebrate our father's life. We are all honored by your
presence and are grateful for your support and affection over
the last few days.
I can imagine my father looking out at the long lines
forming outside the McCabe's funeral Home yesterday. He would
have said, ``Frankie McCabe must be giving something out for
Free!''
Frank isn't, Dad, believe me.
My father was born in Lowell on July 16, 1927 to Martin H.
Meehan and Josephine Ashe Meehan. His father immigrated to
the United States from County Clare, Ireland in 1912. His
mother, immigrated from County Kerry the year before, was a
cousin of the great Irish patriot Thomas Ashe, who died
during one of the first hungers strikes--in Ireland's fight
for freedom in Mount Joy Jail in 1916.
Thomas Ashe's picture was hung on the wall of his family
home on Batchelder Street in the Acre Section of Lowell. In
1963, a portrait of President Kennedy was added.
The Acre was where the Greek and Irish immigrants settled
in Lowell. My father grew up there and he loved it. Swimming
in the canals, playing baseball for St. Patrick's and Lowell
High School, and building lifetime bonds. It was a
neighborhood where the kids were tough and strong, and
everyone had a nick name--hence ``Buster.'' The Acre was
where thousands of new immigrant families were becoming part
of the great American Dream.
In 1946, Dad met my mother at a party her cousin Maureen
Gay had. Dad was not invited, he crashed. And my mother was
glad he did. There were married three years later.
My father had a saying for everything in life. Some of them
really bugged me at times. But they all had a purpose and
wisdom for how to lead a good life.
``One God, One County, One Woman'' he used to say. That--
one woman--was my mother. He was passionately in love with
her through 51 years of marriage. Their love for each other
intensified and grew. I believe the love our father and
mother shared for one another was extended to every person
who was a part of their lives.
I can remember as a very small boy first learning the
concept of love. ``I love you kids with all my heart'' he'd
say. ``But I love your mother even more''. ``But Dad'', I
once replied, ``Who am I supposed to love more? You or Ma?
``You kids should love your mother the most'', he'd say.
``She gave birth to you.''
First they lived in a three tenement on Lincoln Street
where Colleen and Kathy and I were born. Later they bought an
eight-room house the next street over at 22 London Street
where they raised seven children in a home that was filled
with love, laughter, energy . . . action 24 hour a day . . .
a strong commitment to the Catholic Church and to family.
It was a great neighborhood--and my father helped us spread
our family's love all over it. And there isn't a better
testament to that love--than our relationship with the Durkin
family who had seven children of their own, just down the
street. So many memories, so many stories.
Visiting the ice cream stand with Dad was unforgettable. He
would load all of us into the car with as many of our friends
as would fit. He would ask us what we wanted. ``I'll have a
banana split,'' I'd shout. My sisters would say, ``I'll have
a hot fudge Sunday.'' Our friends couldn't believe it--they
would order a shake or double ice cream scoop with extra
nuts, extra whipped cream!
He'd take everyone's order and then go up to the line.
Don't worry, he'd say, ``I'll carry it back''.
Ten minutes later he'd return with 13 single cups of
chocolate ice cream. ``That's all they'd had,'' he'd shrug?
Dad was also a very successful little league coach. On
Dad's White Sox team everyone played--at least three innings.
I remember how embarrassed I was when Dad's White Sox lost
every game--0-18. Some games we were winning after three
winnings, 8 to 4 or even 7 to 2. But in the fourth inning Dad
put all of the subs in--no matter what. ``Everyone plays!''
he'd say. The other teams kept the best players in for the
whole game. Naturally, they would win.
Today I am so proud of the way my Dad coached the kids on
that 0 and 18 team. Today, I am so proud of how my father
lived his life.
As children, we shared so many happy times together each
summer with family and friends at Seabrook Beach. Later as
adults, with his grandchildren, we spent weekends at dad and
Mom's beach house. After a few morning hours together on the
beach, Mom and Dad would head back to the house to begin the
daylong cooking ritual so that we could have a dinner
together. Many times in the evenings, we would sing songs
around a bonfire on the beach. We enjoyed lobster bakes and
thankfully Mom and Dad got to enjoy an occasional sunrise
together. And many times, after a long day, many of us would
sit together and watch the sun go down and our father would
say to us all, ``It's a great life and it's a great
country''.
Dad worked at the Lowell Sun Publishing Company for 43
years. He started as a truck driver . . . became a linotype
operator . . . Then became Assistant Foreman in the Composing
Room. He loved the Sun and the newspaper business, and he
knew it from soup to nuts. There were a lot of great
reporters that came through the Sun over the years, but my
father never hesitated to tell them when he felt they just
didn't get it right--especially on a political story.
Frank Phillips, Chris Black, Brian Mooney and others all
heard from Dad on more than one occasion. When he was
finished he had earned their respect and they appreciated his
wisdom and experience. And they all affectionately repeat
those stories--even today.
Dad was an active lifetime member of the Typographical
Union--serving in a leadership position. He always stressed
the importance of workers being able to organize for fair
wages and benefits. It's not surprising that my sisters
Colleen and Kathy are members of the teachers union and Mark
and Paul are active members of their respective unions as
well.
But as strong a union person as he was--he loved the Lowell
Sun and the company's ownership, the Costello Family. He
followed the Costello kids' lives as if they were his own--
always loyal to the company and the Costello family.
Supporting Mom and seven young children was not always
easy. For seven years he got a second job working nights as a
Corrections Officer. On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays he
would get up at 5:30 to be at the Sun to punch in at 7
o'clock. His shift was over at 3:30. He'd put on his uniform
at the Paper, punch in at the Jail at 4 o'clock and work
until midnight. He got home by 12:30 in the morning, and went
to bed for five hours so he could be back at the paper by 7
am.
I'm sure it wasn't easy--but he wanted the best for his
children and he wanted my mother to be able to be home with
us.
My father didn't care what we did for work--but he wanted
us to get an education. And we all did. He was especially
proud of the fact that my sisters Colleen, Kathy, and Mary
all became school teachers. He thought it was the most
important job of all. ``Teaching is not a job''--Dad would
say--``it's a vocation''. He loved the idea that his
daughters were helping to shape the minds of 25 kids in a
classroom each day.
He was so proud of all his children, in a unique and
special way. My brother Mark, a master electrician, ``has the
biggest and best heart of all my kids'', he'd say. And Mark
gave Dad his newest precious grandchild ``Sarah'' just two
weeks ago. He was so proud that Paul followed him to the
Sheriff's Department. Paul is a model for overcoming
obstacles and winning. He recently went back to school for
his degree, got married and was promoted to Captain as well.
When I ran for Congress in 1992 my sister Maureen answered
the call and put her work--and life--on hold to take the most
important job in the campaign--raising the money to win. My
Dad just loved the fact that I turned to my sister. And when
we won
[[Page 24259]]
he knew it was Maureen who was the rock behind us. ``Politics
is a tough business,'' he'd say--``you need people you can
really trust--and that means family''. That's why President
Kennedy had Bobby. 'Course after the election, I remember
Maureen was sick and I asked, ``What's wrong with her
now?''--Dad's split second response--``Working for you!''
Dad was so well read, a voracious reader . . . A lover of
poetry and words, and boy did he love to sing!
So much love in his heart, and this extension of love was
felt by his grandchildren and in-laws. The term ``in-laws''
didn't mean much to Dad--he welcomed them and loved them like
they were his own. And they loved him back.
All fifteen of his grandchildren are loved as individuals
and each of them realizes the power of love and family
through their papa and munama. One of my young nieces asked
during the last couple of days, ``How did Papa have so much
love to give to so many people?'' Well, I really don't know
the answer to that for sure. I just know he did. Every time
our father gave us a hug--or as he would say a hug-a-deen--he
would accompany it with an ``I love you''. ``Aren't they
wonderful'', Dad would say. ``Your mother and I will live in
them in the next generation through these beautiful kids . .
. and as I've told you'', he'd say, ``that's the sweet
mystery of life''.
So happy, so content, there was nothing more in life that
he wanted--than that which he already had--His Family.
And he thanked God for our happiness every single day.
Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., once said that the measure of a
man's success in life was not the money he had made, but
rather the family he had raised. That quote has been framed
in my parents' home over 15 years. My father believed it and
devoted himself to family every day of his life for 73 years.
He was an immensely successful man.
We love you Dad and will miss you.
____________________
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM TAX FAIRNESS
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
retain the important ag tax provisions contained in the Senate version
of the upcoming tax package that will soon be before us. I have not
seen the final tax bill as of yet, but word is that most if not all of
the agricultural tax provisions are being stripped from the bill at the
will of the House. I hope this is not true. I cannot imagine why we
would choose to leave out farmers from important tax relief at a time
when this Congress has clearly recognized the economic hardships in
farm country today.
I plead with my colleagues to include these necessary provisions in
any final tax package.
Specifically, I am talking about a provision that came from a bill
Senator Daschle and I introduced--along with 31 co-sponsors--to clarify
that Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) payments made to farmers for
taking agricultural land out of production for environmental
improvement--are not subject to self employment social security taxes--
a rate of up to 15 percent of the payment amount.
The CRP has been a great success for this nation. The program
provides financial incentives for improving and preserving
environmentally sensitive land--taking it out of production and
enhancing its environmental benefit. The CRP program increases water
quality, wildlife habitat and prevents soil erosion--all factors which
have become even more important in light of recent concerns about
nonpoint source pollution in our nation's waterways.
The Senate has strongly supported this measure--passing it by
unanimous consent earlier this year on the death tax debate--and our
Senate leadership has held firm in fighting for this needed provision,
but for some reason, our fine colleagues in the House have decided to
make an issue of this provision and are trying to strike it from the
tax package.
It makes no sense to yield to the House on this matter. The
provision, as currently contained in the Senate tax package--will only
cost $292 million over 5 years--but that money and the clarity it
brings to our nation's farmers is worth far more than can be said in
this time of farm economic stress. This provision allows farmers to
plan and better use their resources next year because they will no
longer have to wonder or worry about whether the IRS is going to come
after them for a conservation tax they didn't know they owed.
Currently, there is confusion over whether CRP income should be taxed
owing to a recent court case in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which
overturned a 1998 Tax Court ruling that CRP income is not subject to
social security taxes. The Tax Court found and I concur, that because
it is a rental payment the government makes in exchange for farmers
taking environmentally sensitive land out of production, CRP payments
should be treated the same as other contractual agreements made by
farmers for land use--and be exempt from self-employment taxes.
The new court ruling creates a discrepancy between active farmers who
take part in CRP--which are now subject to the tax--and landowners who
do not farm but take part in CRP and are exempt from the tax.
This tax correction is just common sense. Now more than ever we
should appreciate the need for conservation and the co-benefits of
wildlife, air and water quality it provides. We should not allow a tax
to create confusion and a disincentive for farmers to trust and work
with government for the good of the environment.
Numerous ag groups support this bill including the National Corn
Growers, National Wheat Growers, American Soybean and Cattlemen's Beef
Associations--along with the National Farmer's Union and the American
Farm Bureau. This is our only opportunity to address this important
issue.
In my state of Kansas alone, $102.7 million in CRP payments were
issued in 1999. Are we really going to tell farmers that this money--
promised them for conservation purposes--will now be additionally
taxed? This would amount to a disincentive for farmers to participate
in environmental and conservation programs. Is that the message this
Congress really wants to send?
Again, I urge my colleagues to include this important provision--and
all the ag tax provisions that have been so carefully worked out and
included in the Community Renewal and New Markets Act. We cannot afford
to leave this important work undone.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
DISABILITY MENTORING DAY
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has
proclaimed October 25 ``Iowa Disability Mentoring Day.'' Today, Iowans
around the state will work to raise awareness of the benefits for all
of us of increasing employment opportunities for young people with
disabilities. And young people with disabilities will learn about job
opportunities through on-site work experiences, job shadowing, and
other forms of job mentoring.
Many of the mentors will themselves be people with disabilities. All
children need role models, and I'm thrilled that through mentoring,
children with disabilities will see tangible evidence that their
disability does not diminish their ability to participate in the
cultural, economic, educational, political, and social mainstream.
It's no surprise that Iowa is celebrating disability mentoring,
because we are a leader in the field. This week, Iowa received a
Federal grant under the Work Incentives Improvement Act for the Working
Together So All Can Work program. This grant will enable more people
with disabilities to participate in the workforce.
And Iowa Creative Employment Options, along with the University of
Iowa Hospital School, has started up the Healthy and Ready to Work
Mentoring Project. The project is run by a mentoring group of young
adults with disabilities who have achieved their career goals or are
pursuing the education and training they need to reach their goals.
These young men and women are college students, computer programmers,
teachers, television directors, social workers, and businesspeople. On
top of their studies and jobs, they are working with high school
guidance counselors, meeting with students with disabilities, and
developing a resource
[[Page 24260]]
book to help students with disabilities and other students prepare for
their careers. And they're planning to do even more in the future.
Mr. President, ten years ago, we passed the Americans with
Disabilities Act. We said no to exclusion, dependence, and paternalism
for people with disabilities, and we said yes to inclusion,
independence, and empowerment. Iowa Disability Mentoring Day and
projects like the Healthy and Ready to Work Mentoring Project and the
Working Together So All Can Work Program bring the ADA to life every
day by increasing the independence and self-sufficiency of people with
disabilities. I thank everyone who is a part of these efforts.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF BERKELEY COLLEGE
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I stand today to congratulate
Berkeley College for being named the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of
Commerce Corporate Citizen of the Year. Berkeley College has become a
vital link in the Township of Woodbridge and throughout Middlesex
County among students, business leaders, and government officials.
Cooperation among all three elements has allowed them to form stronger
relationships, institutions, and alliances throughout the community.
Berkeley College has fostered this collaborative spirit by hosting a
number of informational forums such as the Education Foundation's
Educator Institute, Tech Academy 2000, and other useful job training
programs. Berkeley College has also sponsored a number of annual public
service events like the Mayor's Fun Run, the Mayor's Holiday Stroll in
the Park, and Making Strides in Breast Cancer. Most importantly,
Berkeley offers a high quality business education to more than 600
students who receive valuable hands on knowledge of the current
business culture through the College's association with various
business and government leaders.
It is an honor to be able to recognize the achievements of Berkeley
College.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF BERNADETTE M. SOHLER
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor
Bernadette M. Sohler as the 2000 recipient of the Woodbridge Metro
Chamber of Commerce Member of the Year for her exemplary service to the
Chamber and the community at large.
Bernadette has served as a strong advocate and avid supporter of the
Woodbridge Chamber since 1994. She served as its President from 1998-
1999 and has volunteered for numerous committees including the Annual
Chamber Golf Classic, Tour of Woodbrigde, Holiday Luncheon and Parade,
Chairman's Award, and Staff Appreciation Day.
As the External Affairs Manager at the Middlesex Water Company,
Bernadette is responsible for all community and media relations;
employee, customer, financial communications; corporate contributions;
and public education. Her numerous board positions include Chair of the
Public Information Committee of the American Water Works Association,
the Central Jersey National Council of Community and Justice, the
Charity Committee of the Diocese of Metuchen, Raritan Bay Healthcare
Foundation, and the Perth Amboy Neighborhood Empowerment Council
Economic Development Task Force. Bernadette's strong record in the
business community at the Middlesex Water Company and her commitment to
public service demonstrate her outstanding achievements in the public
and private sectors.
It is an honor to recognize Bernadette M. Sohler's efforts and
congratulate her on receiving the 2000 Chamber of Commerce Member of
the Year Award from the Woodbrigde Metro Chamber of Commerce.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF ELIZABETH JONASKY
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize
Elizabeth Jonasky of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey on the momentous
occasion of her 105th birthday. Mrs Jonasky will reach this wonderful
milestone on November 5th of this year, and I feel it fitting that we
acknowledge this special moment.
As I ponder all of the marvels and tragedies of our world that
Elizabeth Jonasky has witnessed, I am reminded of the profound words of
the Greek philosopher Plato, who once said, ``It gives me great
pleasure to converse with the aged. They have been over the road that
all of us must travel, and know where it is rough and difficult and
where it is level and easy.''
It is a honor to wish Mrs. Jonasky the best of happiness on her
birthday. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to continue to
learn about life's rough and easy spots from her for sometime to
come.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF FATHER ROBERT COUNSELMAN
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that
I rise today to honor Father Robert Counselman, who received the 2000
William E. Short Award from the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce.
Through his exemplary service to the community, Father Counselman has
shown his dedication and commitment to numerous civic institutions
within and outside of the church.
Father Counselman serves as Chaplain to the Woodbridge Township
Police Department and the Woodbridge Chamber of Commerce. He is an
active participant in several civic and private institutions such as
Habitat for Humanity, the Woodbridge Historical League, the Community
Advisory Panel, and the Woodbridge Historic Preservation Commission. He
was also instrumental in setting up a ``Soup Kitchen'' at Trinity
Church, which provides free meals on Fridays. In addition, he helped
establish a community playground, and is always available to assist
people in their times of need.
It is an honor to recognize Father Robert Counselman's work and
congratulate him on receiving the William E. Short Award from the
Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF JOHN A. HOFFMAN ESQ.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise today
to recognize John A. Hoffman Esq., a lifelong resident of central New
Jersey, as the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the
Year. John has participated in numerous business, legal, and community
affairs for more than 35 years and has established a remarkable record
of success.
Mr. Hoffman joined the firm of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in 1963,
and is currently a managing partner. He represents major corporate and
government clients such as PSE&G, Verizon New Jersey, Inc., Elizabeth
Town Water Company, the Middlesex County Utilities Authority, and the
New Jersey Performing Arts Center. John also serves as a member on
several boards such as the Middlesex County College Foundation, Robert
Wood Johnson University Hospital Foundation, Sister Cities Program of
New Brunswick, and the New Jersey Client Security Fund. John has
devoted his life to the practice of law and has used his experience and
vision to lead and advise several other institutions in New Jersey. It
is his extensive service to these institutions and their continued
success that our State of New Jersey owes a great debt of gratitude.
It is an honor to recognize Mr. Hoffman's work and extend my
congratulations to him on receiving the 2000 Citizen of the Year Award
from the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce.
____________________
[[Page 24261]]
IN RECOGNITION OF LEE VETLAND
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that
I rise today to recognize Lee Vetland, the Woodbridge Chamber of
Commerce Small Business Person of the Year. As owner of Lee's Auto
Body, Inc. in Avenel, New Jersey, Mr. Vetland has turned his business
into a highly respected and successful enterprise.
Lee's Auto Body opened for business in 1975 with three employees.
Since that time, through his own industry, hard work, and a strong work
ethic, Lee has seen his business grow to 21 employees. His efforts and
commitment extend to other areas besides his entrepreneurship. Lee is
the Chairman of the Board for Auto Body Distributing Company, Vice
President of the Auto Body Shop Association in New Jersey
(A.A.S.P.N.J.), a member of the Advisory Board for the Amoco Dealer
Panel, and the Governor's Task Force on insurance fraud. While Lee has
excelled in the auto body business, his expertise and knowledge have
benefitted numerous organizations and associations throughout New
Jersey as well.
It is an honor to recognize Mr. Vetland's achievements and extend my
congratulations to him for receiving the 2000 Small Business Person of
the Year Award from the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN CANCER
SOCIETY
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I stand today to congratulate
the Middlesex County Division of the American Cancer Society for being
honored with the Community Service Award by the Woodbridge Metro
Chamber of Commerce. The Middlesex Unit offers a wide array of programs
and resources to help people learn about new treatments for cancer,
arrange for home care, locate medical supplies and uplift patients with
cancer and their families.
The Middlesex Unit is dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major
health problem by taking pro-active measures to save lives and diminish
the suffering of cancer patients through research, education, advocacy,
and service. The Middlesex County Division's commitment to reducing the
effects of cancer through medical means as well as its commitment to
helping patients through financial assistance illustrates the
Division's unique and humane approach to aiding patients with cancer.
Their services have been of great benefit to countless individuals in
Middlesex County.
It is an honor to recognize the work of the Middlesex County Division
of the American Cancer Society and congratulate them on receiving the
Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce's 2000 Community Service
Award.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Williams, one of his secretaries.
executive messages referred
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 11:08 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3646) for the
relief of certain Persian Gulf evacuees.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 468) to establish the Saint Helena
Island National Scenic Area.
The message further announced that the House has agreed to the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2442) to provide for the
preparation of a Government report detailing injustices suffered by
Italian Americans during World War II, and a formal acknowledgment of
such injustices by the President.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2884) to extend energy conservation
programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act through fiscal
year 2003.
The message further announced that the House has passed the following
bills, without amendment:
S. 484. An act to provide for the granting of refugee
status in the United States to nationals of certain foreign
countries in which American Vietnam War POW/MIAs or American
Korean War POW/MIAs may be present, if those nationals assist
in the return to the United States of those POW/MIAs alive.
S. 698. An act to review the suitability and feasibility of
recovering costs of high altitude rescues at Denali National
Park and Preserve in the State of Alaska, and for other
purposes.
S. 700. An act to amend the National Trails System Act to
designate the Ala Kahakai Trail as a National Historic Trail.
S. 893. An act to amend title 46, United States Code, to
provide equitable treatment with respect to State and local
income taxes for certain individuals who perform duties on
vessels.
S. 938. An act to eliminate restrictions on the acquisition
of certain land contiguous to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park,
and for other purposes.
S. 1438. An act to establish the National Law Enforcement
Museum on Federal land in the District of Columbia.
S. 1474. An act providing conveyance of the Palmetto Bend
project to the State of Texas.
S. 1482. An act to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries
Act, and for other purposes.
S. 1752. An act to reauthorize and amend the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act.
S. 1865. An act to provide grants to establish
demonstration mental health courts.
S. 2345. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a special resource study concerning the preservation
and public use of sites associated with Harriet Tubman
located in Auburn, New York, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has passed the following
bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
H.R. 1161. An act to revise the banking and bankruptcy
insolvency laws with respect to the termination and netting
of financial contracts, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1804. An act to authorize the Pyramid of Remembrance
Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of
Columbia or its environs to soldiers who have lost their
lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts,
training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations.
H.R. 2413. An act to amend the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act to enhance the ability of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology to improve
computer security, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3312. An act to clarify the Administrative Dispute
Resolution Act of 1996 to authorize the Merit Systems
Protection Board to establish under such Act a 3-year pilot
program that will provide a voluntary early intervention
alternative dispute resolution process to assist Federal
agencies and employees in resolving certain personnel
actions.
H.R. 3514. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for a system of sanctuaries for chimpanzees that have
been designated as being no longer needed in research
conducted or supported by the Public Health Service, and for
other purposes.
H.R. 4656. An act to authorize the Forest Service to convey
certain lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin to the Washoe County
School District for use as an elementary school site.
H.R. 4940. An act to designate the museum operated by the
Secretary of Energy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as the
``American Museum of Science and Energy,'' and for other
purposes.
H.R. 5068. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 5927 Southwest 70th Street
in Miami, Florida, as the ``Marjory Williams Scrivens Post
Office.''
H.R. 5143. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 3160 Irvin Cobb Drive, in
Paducah, Kentucky, as the ``Morgan Station.''
H.R. 5144. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 203 West Paige Street, in
Tompkinsville, Kentucky, as the ``Tim Lee Carter Post Office
Building.''
H.R. 5388. An act to designate a building proposed to be
located within the boundaries of the Chincoteague National
Wildlife Refuge, as the ``Herbert H. Bateman Educational and
Administrative Center.''
H.R. 5478. An act to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to acquire by donation suitable land to serve as the
new location for the home of Alexander Hamilton, commonly
known as the Hamilton Grange, and to authorize the relocation
of the Hamilton Grange to the acquired land.
The message further announced that the House has agreed to the
following concurrent resolutions, without amendment:
S. Con. Res. 114. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri, as a national
World War I symbol honoring those who defend liberty and our
country through service in World War I.
[[Page 24262]]
S. Con. Res. 130. Concurrent resolution establishing a
special task force to recommend an appropriate recognition
for the slave laborers who worked on the construction of the
United States Capitol.
S. Con. Res. 141. Concurrent resolution to authorize the
printing of copies of the publication entitled ``The United
States Capitol'' as a Senate document.
S. Con. Res. 146. Concurrent resolution condemning the
assassination of Father John Kaiser and others in Kenya, and
calling for a thorough investigation to be conducted in those
cases, a report on the progress made in such as investigation
to be submitted to Congress by December 15, 2000, and a final
report on such an investigation to be made public, and for
other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 414. Concurrent resolution relating to the
reestablishment of representative government in Afghanistan.
The message further announced that the House has agreed to the
resolution (H. Res. 645) returning to the Senate the bill (S. 1109)
entitled the ``Bear Protection Act of 1999'' in which is conveys that
in the opinion of the House, the bill contravenes the first clause of
the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the
United States and is an infringement of the privileges of the House and
that such bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message
communicating the resolution.
The message also announced that the House has passed the bill (S.
1453) to facilitate famine relief efforts and a comprehensive solution
to the war in Sudan, with amendment.
The message further announced that the House has passed the bill (S.
1452) to modernize the requirements under the National Manufactured
Housing Construction and Safety Standards of 1974 and to establish a
balanced consensus process for the development, revision, and
interpretation of Federal construction and safety standards for
manufactured homes, with amendments.
The message also announced that the House has passed the bill (S.
1694) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the
reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater in the State of Hawaii,
with amendments.
The message further announced that the House has passed the bill (S.
2749) to establish the California Trail Interpretive Center in Elko,
Nevada, to facilitate the interpretation of the history of development
and use of trails in the setting of the western portion of the United
States, with amendments.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4868) to amend the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of
duty, to make other technical amendments to the trade laws, and for
other purposes, with an amendment.
____
At 11:08 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Hays, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 4811) making appropriations for foreign operations, export
financing and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes.
____
At 3:34 p.m. a message from the House of Representatives delivered by
Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 782. An act to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965
to extend authorizations of appropriations for programs under
the Act, to modernize programs and services for older
individuals, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 426. Concurrent resolution concerning the
violence in the Middle East.
The message further announced that the House has passed the following
bill, without amendment:
S. 2547. An act to provide for the establishment of the
Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve and the Baca
National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Colorado, and for
other purposes.
____
At 5:08 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following joint resolution, in which it requests the
concurrence of the Senate:
H.J. Res. 115. Joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other
purposes.
____
At 6:18 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Hays, one of its clerks, announced that the House has agreed to
the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 835) to
encourage the restoration of estuary habitat through more efficient
project financing and enhanced coordination of Federal and non-Federal
restoration programs, and for other purposes.
enrolled bill signed
At 7:24 p.m. a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has signed the
following enrolled joint resolution:
H.J. Res. 115. Joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other
purposes.
The enrolled bill was signed subsequently by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Thurmond).
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-630. A resolution adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners, Cuyahoga County, Ohio relative to the Ryan
White CARE Act programs; to the Committee on Appropriations.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted.
By Mr. STEVENS, from the Committee on Appropriations:
Special Report entitled ``Further Revised Allocation To
Subcommittees Of Budget Totals for Fiscal Year 2001'' (Rept.
No. 106-508).
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORT OF COMMITTEE
The following executive report of committee was submitted:
By Mr. ROTH for the Committee on Finance.
Lisa Gayle Ross, of the District of Columbia, to be Chief
Financial Officer, Department of the Treasury.
(The above nomination was reported with the recommendation that it be
confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to
appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the
Senate.)
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 3232. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain
projects in California for the use or reuse of reclaimed
water and for the design and construction of demonstration
and permanent facilities for that purpose, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 3233. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to provide for medicare beneficiary copayments for
outpatient mental health services that are the same as
beneficiary copayments for other part B services, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 3234. A bill to protect the public's ability to fish for
sport, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
S. 3235. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide for a deferral of tax on gain from the sale of
telecommunications businesses in specific circumstances or a
tax credit and other incentives to promote diversity of
ownership in telecommunications businesses; to the Committee
on Finance.
[[Page 24263]]
By Mr. BOND:
S. 3236. A bill to provide for reauthorization of small
business loan and other programs, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Small Business.
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 3237. A bill to provide for an international scientific
commission to assess changes in global climate patterns, to
conduct scientific studies and analyses on behalf of nations,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3238. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide protections for individuals who need mental health
services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. LOTT (for Mr. Helms (for himself and Mr.
Kennedy)):
S. 3239. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide special immigrant status for certain United
States international broadcasting employees; considered and
passed.
By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 3240. A bill to avoid a pay-go sequestration for fiscal
year 2001; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee
on Governmental Affairs, jointly.
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Cleland):
S. 3241. A bill to carry out an international fellowship
program between the United States and Vietnam to enable
Vietnamese nationals to pursue advanced studies in science,
mathematics, medicine, and technology; to enable United
States citizens to teach in those fields in Vietnam; and to
promote reconciliation between the two countries; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Jeffords, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 3242. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act to encourage equity investment in rural
cooperatives and other rural businesses, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Mrs. BOXER:
S. 3232. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain projects in California
for the use or reuse of reclaimed water and for the design and
construction of demonstration and permanent facilities for that
purpose, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
california reclaimed water act for the 21st century
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the
California Reclaimed Water Act for the 21st century. As California
takes its first steps into the 21st century, it is undeniable that the
quality of water, the quantity of water, and the availability of water
are among the most formidable challenges to our 34 million citizens and
the many diverse regions of our fast growing state. Our farmers, urban
dwellers, sport and commercial fishing interests, tribes, mountain
communities and environmentalists all seek a more reliable and a more
certain water future. Recycled water plays an important part in meeting
California's water needs today and will play an even more important
role in the next several decades.
California is making significant progress in its effort to put its
water house in order. Between March and June of this year, two major
water policy initiatives occurred in California. On March 7, 2000,
California voters overwhelmingly approved a $2 billion water bond.
Further, on August 28, 2000, Governor Gray Davis and Interior Secretary
Bruce Babbitt signed the landmark CALFED water agreement which broadly
sets a course for California's water future. Water recycling and reuse
is a major element of both these new actions and policies.
The existing federal program to support water recycling is found in
title XVI, Public Law 102-575 and was enacted in 1992. The law
authorized recycling projects and studies throughout California,
including in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. The
law also authorized projects in Colorado and Arizona. The 1992 law also
called for a special Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation and Reuse study to investigate how the use of recycled
water could relieve water supply pressure in California. That study is
being prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State of California's
Department of Water Resources, Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, Central Basin and West Basin Municipal Water Districts,
City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, San Diego Water Authority,
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority and the South Orange County
Reclamation Authority. It should soon be completed.
Expressing continued support for the title XVI program, in 1996
Congress authorized a second group of water recycling projects in
California, from Watsonville to Ventura County, and from Pasadena to
Orange County, plus individual projects in Utah, New Mexico, Texas and
Nevada. The legislation I introduce today builds upon these
congressional efforts, voter ballot initiatives and agency studies. The
bill authorizes a series of title XVI water recycling projects and
directs the Secretary of the Interior to work with various water
districts throughout the State including: Castaic Lake Water Agency
Reclaimed Water Project Lake County, Clear Lake Basin Water Reuse
Project East Bay Municipal Utility District and the San Ramon Serves
District Recycled Water Project Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Inland
Empire Regional Water Recycling Project in San Bernardino County San
Pablo Baylands Water Reuse Project in Sonoma, Napa, Marin and Solano
Counties State of California Water Recycling Program Regional Brine
Lines (salt removal) in Southern California, the San Francisco Bay and
the Santa Clara Valley areas Chino Basin Watermaster, Inland Empire
Utilities Agency, Western Municipal Water District and the Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority for the Lower Chino Dairy Area Desalination
Demonstration and Reclamation Project.
Additional research, in cooperation with the WateReuse Foundation, is
mandated and two previously authorized projects, one in Los Angeles and
the other in the San Gabriel Basin, are modified. Finally, my bill
mandates that the proposed projects be coordinated with the CALFED
Program. Taken together, these projects will have the capacity to
produce hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water. The Inland Empire
Regional Water Recycling Project, for example, is designed to yield up
to 66,000 acre feet of recycled water annually. Each acre foot of
recycled water reduces the demand for imported water from the Bay-Delta
and the Colorado River. Inland proposed to ``drought proof'' its region
with these and related investments.
Beneficiaries of these projects and these investments include the
immediate service areas, downstream neighbors, and towns and
communities throughout California. Water recycling projects in
California also reduce the demand for imported water, be it from the
San Francisco Bay-Delta or the Colorado River. Recycling and reuse
investments in Southern California have the effect of helping the Bay-
Delta by reducing demand for additional imported Bay-Delta water. These
same investments benefit California's neighboring states up and down
the Colorado River. As more water is developed locally, pressure is
reduced for imports.
Presently, negotiations are underway between California and the other
six states of the Colorado River Basin. California is being asked to
reduce the amount of water it takes from the Colorado River. In fact,
as a result of these talks, California faces a reduction of some
800,000 acre feet. The water recycling projects proposed in this
legislation can help California meet this challenge. As a result, Utah,
Colorado, Nevada and Arizona also benefit from these programs. Unlike
traditional Bureau of Reclamation water projects, these water recycling
projects require a majority of funds to be locally provided. Consistent
with title XVI limitations on recycling projects as authorized in 1992
and 1996, the projects proposed in my bill require 75 percent local
funding. Federal cost sharing is limited to 25 percent. Moreover, this
bill specifies that none of the funds can be used for annual operation
and maintenance costs. Those annual expenses are the responsibility of
the
[[Page 24264]]
local water districts or management agency.
The water recycling projects authorized by my bill are part of a
long-term solution to some of California's most difficult challenges.
Water recycling is not the only solution. But, water recycling and
water reuse can play a significant part as these projects can be
designed, built, and placed on line within a short time. This bill
helps communities throughout California. This bill helps communities in
Southern California, reducing pressure on the Bay-Delta water supplies.
And, this bill respects our neighboring states up and down the Colorado
River. I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 3232
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 ``California Reclaimed Water
Act for the 21st Century''.
SEC. 2. COORDINATION OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.
Section 1602 of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Coordination With CALFED Bay-Delta Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall coordinate projects
under this title with projects and programs under the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program referred to in the California Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act (division E
of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-748).
``(2) Federal expenditures.--The Secretary shall take into
account Federal expenditures under this title in making
determinations under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program relating to
the equitable implementation of ecosystem restoration and
water management.
``(f) Compliance With National Environmental Policy Act of
1969.--Each project under this title shall be carried out in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS.
The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended--
(1) by inserting after section 1601 the following:
``Subtitle A--Specific Projects'';
(2) by redesignating sections 1631, 1632, 1633, and 1634
(43 U.S.C. 390h-13, 390h-14, 390h-15, 390h-16) as sections
1640, 1671, 1672, and 1631, respectively;
(3) by moving section 1631 (as redesignated by paragraph
(2)) to follow section 1630;
(4) by inserting before section 1671 (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``Subtitle B--Studies and Research'';
(5) by inserting after section 1631 (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``SEC. 1632. CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY RECLAIMED WATER
PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Castaic Lake Water Agency, California, may participate in the
design, planning, and construction of the Castaic Lake Water
Agency reclaimed water project, California, to reclaim and
reuse wastewater within and outside the service area of the
Castaic Lake Water Agency for ecosystem restoration,
irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other public
purposes.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
``SEC. 1633. CLEAR LAKE BASIN WATER REUSE PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with Lake
County, California, may participate in the design, planning,
and construction of the Clear Lake Basin water reuse project
to obtain, store, and use reclaimed wastewater in Lake County
for ecosystem restoration, irrigation, recreational,
industrial, and other public purposes.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $9,000,000.
``SEC. 1634. SAN RAMON VALLEY RECYCLED WATER PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide design and
construction assistance for the East Bay Municipal Utility
District/Dublin San Ramon Services District advanced
wastewater reuse treatment project, California, for use for
ecosystem restoration, irrigation, recreational, industrial,
and other public purposes.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
``SEC. 1635. INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency, may participate in the
design, planning, and construction of the Inland Empire
regional project described in the report submitted under
section 1606 to recycle water for ecosystem restoration,
irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other public
purposes.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
``SEC. 1636. SAN PABLO BAYLANDS WATER REUSE PROJECTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
Sonoma, Napa, Marin, and Solano Counties, California, may
participate in the design, planning, and construction of
water reuse projects, to be known collectively as the `San
Pablo Baylands water reuse projects', to obtain, store, and
use reclaimed wastewater for ecosystem restoration,
irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other public
purposes.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of any project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.
``SEC. 1637. CALIFORNIA WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may provide assistance to
the State of California in carrying out projects that receive
funding under chapter 7, article 4, of the Safe Drinking
Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood
Protection Act of the State of California to recycle water
for ecosystem restoration, irrigation, recreational,
industrial, and other public purposes.
``(b) Agreements.--The Secretary may enter into such
agreements as are necessary to carry out this section.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(d) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of any project
described in subsection (a).
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Upon approval of
the Act referred to in subsection (a), there is authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000.
``SEC. 1638. REGIONAL BRINE LINES.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Southern california.--The Secretary, in cooperation
with units of local government, may carry out a program under
the Federal reclamation laws to assist agencies in projects
to construct regional brine lines to export the salinity
imported from the Colorado River to the Pacific Ocean as
identified in--
``(A) the Salinity Management Study prepared by the Bureau
of Reclamation; and
``(B) the Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation and Reuse Study prepared by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
``(2) San francisco bay and santa clara valley.--The
Secretary may carry out a study of, and a program under the
Federal reclamation laws to assist water agencies in,
projects to construct regional brine lines in the San
Francisco Bay area and the Santa Clara Valley area,
California.
``(b) Agreements and Regulations.--The Secretary may enter
into such agreements and promulgate such regulations as are
necessary to carry out this section.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) Projects.--The Federal share of the cost of a project
to construct regional brine lines described in subsection (a)
shall not exceed--
``(A) 25 percent of the total cost of the project; or
``(B) $50,000,000.
``(2) Study.--The Federal share of the cost of the study
described in subsection (a)(2) shall be 50 percent.
``(d) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or
[[Page 24265]]
maintenance of any project described in subsection (a).
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.
``SEC. 1639. LOWER CHINO DAIRY AREA DESALINATION
DEMONSTRATION AND RECLAMATION PROJECT.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Chino Basin Watermaster, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency,
the Western Municipal Water District, and the Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority and acting under the Federal
reclamation laws, shall participate in the design, planning,
and construction of the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination
demonstration and reclamation project.
``(b) Cost Sharing.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed--
``(1) 25 percent of the total cost of the project; or
``(2) $50,000,000.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''; and
(6) by inserting after section 1672 (as redesignated by
paragraph (2)) the following:
``SEC. 1673. RESEARCH CONCERNING WATER REUSE.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
WateReuse Foundation, shall develop and carry out a program
to conduct research concerning water reuse in relation to--
``(1) public health;
``(2) water quality;
``(3) new technology and techniques;
``(4) salt management;
``(5) economics;
``(6) ecosystem restoration; and
``(7) other important matters.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005, to remain available
until expended.''.
SEC. 4. WEST BASIN COMPREHENSIVE DESALINATION DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.
Section 1605 of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h-3) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) West Basin Comprehensive Desalination Demonstration
Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
West Basin Municipal Water District, shall participate in the
planning, design, and construction of the components of the
West Basin Comprehensive Desalination Demonstration Program
in Los Angeles County, California.
``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50
percent of the total.
``(3) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds
for the operation or maintenance of the components described
in paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Los Angeles Area.--Section 1613 of the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43
U.S.C. 390h-11) is amended by striking subsection (b) and
inserting the following:
``(b) Water Recycling Project.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in the
design, planning, and construction of a water recycling
project, to be known as the `City of Los Angeles Water
Recycling Program', to reclaim and reuse wastewater within
the city of Los Angeles and surrounding area for ecosystem
restoration, irrigation, recreational, industrial, and other
public purposes.
``(2) Components.--The water recycling project shall
consist of--
``(A) the central city project, a multiphase project that
may provide up to 4,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water
for ecosystem restoration and for industrial, commercial, and
irrigation customers near downtown Los Angeles; and
``(B) the harbor water recycling project, a multiphase
project that may provide up to 25,000 acre-feet per year of
recycled water to the Los Angeles Harbor area.
``(c) Cost Sharing.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of the
projects described in subsections (a) and (b) shall not
exceed 25 percent of the total cost of the projects.
``(2) Maximum federal share.--The Federal share with
respect to the water recycling project described in
subsection (b) shall not exceed $12,000,000.
``(d) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for operation or maintenance of any project
described in subsection (a) or (b).''.
(b) San Gabriel Basin.--Section 1640(d) of the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43
U.S.C. 390h-13(d)) (as redesignated by section 3(a)(2)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(other than section
1614)'' after ``this title''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) San gabriel basin.--In the case of the project
authorized by section 1614, the Federal share of the cost of
the project shall not exceed $50,500,000.''.
SEC. 6. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act is amended--
(1) in section 1640 (43 U.S.C. 390h-13) (as redesignated by
section 3(a)(2))--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``1630'' and inserting
``1632''; and
(B) in subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``(other than
sections 1634, 1636, 1637, 1638, and 1639)'' after
``authorized by this title'';
(2) in section 1671(c) (43 U.S.C. 390h-14(c)) (as
redesignated by section 3(a)(2)), by striking ``section
1633'' and inserting ``section 1672''; and
(3) in section 1672 (43 U.S.C. 390h-15) (as redesignated by
section 3(a)(2))--
(A) in the section heading, by inserting ``FOR GROUNDWATER
STUDY'' before the period; and
(B) by striking ``section 1632'' and inserting ``section
1671''.
(b) The table of contents in section 2 of the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C.
prec. 371; Public Law 102-575) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the item relating to section 1601
the following:
``Subtitle A--Specific Projects'';
and
(2) by striking the items relating to sections 1631 through
1634 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 1631. Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project.
``Sec. 1632. Castaic Lake Water Agency reclaimed water project.
``Sec. 1633. Clear Lake Basin water reuse project.
``Sec. 1634. San Ramon Valley recycled water project.
``Sec. 1635. Inland Empire regional water recycling project.
``Sec. 1636. San Pablo Baylands water reuse projects.
``Sec. 1637. California water recycling program.
``Sec. 1638. Regional brine lines.
``Sec. 1639. Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and
reclamation project.
``Sec. 1640. Authorization of appropriations.
``Subtitle B--Studies and Research
``Sec. 1671. Groundwater study.
``Sec. 1672. Authorization of appropriations for groundwater study.
``Sec. 1673. Research concerning water reuse.''.
______
Mr. WELLSTONE.
S. 3233. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for Medicare beneficiary copayments for outpatient mental
health services that are the same as beneficiary copayments for other
part B services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
MEDICARE MENTAL HEALTH MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2000
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare
Mental Health Modernization Act, a bill to improve the delivery of
mental health services through the Medicare health care system. This
improvement and modernization of mental health services in the Medicare
system is long overdue, as it has remained virtually unchanged since it
was enacted by Congress in 1965. In the 35 years since then, the
scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of mental illnesses and
the enormous improvements in medications and other effective treatments
have dramatically changed our understanding and treatment of mental
illness. Yet, the health care systems, both public and private, lag
behind in its treatment of this potentially life-threatening disease,
one that affects the young and the old. As we work to improve health
care for all Americans, in all health care systems, the ever-growing
population of older Americans make it all the more urgent that we bring
the Medicare system into the 21st century, and bring mental health care
to those in need.
Though they are so often not recognized, mental health problems among
the elderly are widespread and life-threatening. Americans aged 65
years and older have the highest rate of suicide of any population in
the United States, and suicide rates increase with age. While this age
group accounts for only 13 percent of the U.S. population, Americans 65
and older account for 20 percent of all suicide deaths. All too often,
depression among the elderly is
[[Page 24266]]
untreated or inappropriately treated, and this disease and other
illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, late-life
schizophrenia, can lead to severe impairment or death.
Major depression is strikingly prevalent among older people, with
between 8 and 20 percent of older people in community studies showing
symptoms of depression. Studies of patients in primary care settings
show that up to 37 percent are experiencing such symptoms, although
they often go untreated. Depression is not a normal part of aging, but
a serious debilitating disease. Almost 20 percent of the population of
individuals age 55 and older experience a serious mental disorder. What
is most alarming is that most elderly suicide victims--70 percent--have
visited their primary care doctor in the month prior to their completed
suicide. It is critical that the mental health expertise that is needed
be provided within the Medicare system, and that screening, diagnosis,
and treatment be provided in a timely manner.
Medicare coverage for mental health services is markedly different
from other outpatient services. In order to receive mental health care,
seniors must pay, out of their own pockets, half the cost of a visit to
their mental health specialist, an extremely unfair burden to place on
the elderly, who are so often facing other health or life difficulties
as well.
We know too that substance abuse, particularly of alcohol and
prescription drugs, among adults 65 and older is one of the fastest
growing health problems in the United States, with 17 percent of this
age group suffering from addiction or substance abuse. While addiction
often goes undetected and untreated among older adults, aging and
disability only makes the body more vulnerable to the effects of these
drugs, further exacerbating underlying health problems, and creating a
serious need for treatment that recognizes these vulnerabilities.
Medicare also provides health care coverage for non-elderly
individuals who are disabled, through Social Security Disability
Insurance, SSDI. According to the Health Care Financing Agency, HCFA,
Medicare is the primary health care coverage for the 5 million non-
elderly, disabled people on SSDI. Up to 40 percent of these individuals
have a diagnosis of mental illness and/or addiction, and also face
severe discrimination in their mental health coverage.
What will my bill do? The Medicare Mental Health Modernization Act
has several important components. First, the bill reduces this
discriminatory 50 percent copayment for mental health care to 20
percent, which is equal to the level that applies to every other
outpatient service in Medicare. This is straightforward, fair, and the
right thing to do. By doing so, this provision will increase access to
mental health care overall, especially for those who currently forego
seeking treatment, and instead, find themselves suffering from
worsening mental health conditions. Secondly, the bill adds intensive
residential services to the Medicare mental health benefit package.
This provision will give people suffering from mental illnesses such as
Alzheimer's disease or late-life schizophrenia an alternative to going
to nursing homes. Instead, they will be able to be cared for in their
homes or in more appropriate residential settings. I also ask the
Secretary for Health and Human Services to conduct a study of the
current Medicare coverage criteria to determine the extent to which
people with these forms of illnesses are receiving the appropriate care
that is needed.
Finally, my bill expands the number of mental health professionals
eligible to provide services through Medicare to include clinical
social workers and licensed professional mental health counselors.
Provision of adequate mental health services provided through Medicare
requires more trained and experienced providers for the aging and
growing population and should include those who are appropriately
licensed and qualified to deliver such care.
These changes are needed now. The mental health groups most concerned
with medicare improvement are strongly supportive of this bill,
including, among others, the American Counseling Association, the
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Mental Health
Association, the American Psychological Association, the Bazelon Center
for Mental Health Law, and the National Association of State Mental
Health Program Directors. The U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher
recognized the urgency in his recent reports on mental health: ``Mental
Health: A Report of the Surgeon General'' and ``The Surgeon General's
Call to Action to Prevent Suicide''. Dr. Satcher stated, ``Disability
due to mental illness in individuals over 65 years old will become a
major public health problem in the near future because of demographic
changes. In particular, dementia, depression, and schizophrenia, among
other conditions, will all present special problems for this age
group.''
For too long we have continued to neglect those with mental illness
in our society, and the Medicare system is no exception. I urge your
cosponsorship of this bill as we begin our work in this new century. It
is time to treat the elderly in our society, particularly those with
serious, debilitating diseases, with the care, respect, and fairness
they deserve.
______
By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 3234. A bill to protect the public's ability to fish for sport,
and for other purposes, to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
the freedom to fish act
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to send to the desk a bill
that is called the Freedom to Fish Act. The legislation cosponsored by
Senator Hutchison addresses an unsettling situation arising over access
to our nation's public coastal resources. I understand that it is very
late in the session to be introducing new legislation, but I believe
this matter is significantly important to require immediate
recognition. There is a growing movement to limit the use and enjoyment
of America's coastal and ocean waters. This restriction of public
access is occurring under the guise of the establishment of marine
protected areas. Many in the environmental community are lauding the
creation of these undersea national parks as the silver bullet solution
to our over-exploited fisheries and degraded habitat. The bill I am
introducing today aims to correct a system that would unfairly penalize
our nation's approximately ten million marine recreational anglers. For
while I support the goal of healthy marine fisheries, I disagree
strongly with any method that unnecessarily limits our citizens' access
to public waters.
I believe that my record clearly indicates my dedication to
protecting and improving the health of our oceans and coasts. However,
I believe that restricting public access to those waters is not the
appropriate vehicle for accomplishing that goal in most cases. The
notion of a marine park is certainly not new, having its origins in
successful land management practices. The establishment of wildlife
refuges, national parks and forests has shown clear benefits to the
natural species living on those lands and fresh waters. However, in the
transfer from the land to the marine waters one very important aspect
of the protected area has been neglected. While sport fishing is nearly
universally accepted throughout this nation's terrestrial parks, and
wilderness areas, those advocating the use of marine parks take pains
to specifically restrict the access of recreational anglers. This seems
ironic to me, as an increasing number of recreational anglers practice
catch and release fishing and all contribute money to their state's
fish and game departments through the payment of license fees and
taxes. I believe these anglers to be among this nation's first
conservationists and their contributions to the resource need to be
recognized.
In response to criticism and attacks against our Nation's sportsmen
and women, I introduce the Freedom to Fish Act. The act establishes
guidelines and safeguards by which the public's right to use and enjoy
these resources is preserved in all but the most serious cases. It
provides assurances that the angling public will have a
[[Page 24267]]
place at the table when decisions are made regarding their use of the
resource. Second, the Freedom to Fish Act will ensure that recreational
anglers will be prohibited from an area only when they have been shown
to be causing significant adverse effects on that fishery resource.
Further, should prohibitions be justified, this bill prevents areas
larger than scientifically necessary from being closed. In those cases,
criteria will be established so that once certain goals have been
reached, the area will reopen to the public immediately. Restricting
public admission to our coastal waters should not be our first course
of action, but rather our last resort. Open access to fishing is the
single most important element of recreational fishing. We must defend
public access against those that would try to restrict it under the
cloak of marine resource protection. With that, I submit the Freedom to
Fish Act for your review and discussion.
______
Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
S. 3235. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for a deferral of tax on gain from the sale of telecommunications
businesses in specific circumstances or a tax credit and other
incentives to promote diversity of ownership in telecommunications
businesses; to the Committee on Finance.
Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2000
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce revised
legislation that will make sure that new entrants and small businesses
will have the chance to enter and grow in today's megacorporation-
dominated telecommunications marketplace. Together with my good friend
and colleague, Communications Subcommittee Chairman Conrad Burns, I am
pleased to bring forward for the Senate's consideration The
Telecommunications Ownership Diversity Act of 2000.
Mr. President, no one needs to be told that any small business faces
significant barriers in trying to enter the telecommunications
industry. These barriers are even more formidable when the entrepreneur
happens to be a woman or a member of a minority group, due to their
historically more difficult job of obtaining needed financing.
Therefore, in this current telecom industry mixer, small businesses,
especially those owned by minorities or women, are often left without
partners, watching as bigger, more established companies, get to dance.
That's not right, but there is an answer. The answer isn't to forbid
mergers out-of-hand, or to retain hopelessly outdated FCC ownership
restrictions, or to pursue constitutionally or economically doomed set-
aside programs. The answer is to give established industry players
economic incentives to deal with new entrants and small businesses that
counterbalance the incentives they have to deal with larger companies.
And that's what this bill does. The Telecommunications Ownership
Diversity Act of 2000 will promote entry into the telecommunications
industry during this period of unprecedented restructuring by providing
carefully-limited changes to the tax law. These changes to the tax law
are an indispensable component of the solution. Under current law,
smaller companies typically must purchase properties for cash, and cash
transactions are fully taxable to the seller. So naturally sellers of
telecommunications businesses prefer to sell for stock, which is tax-
deferred, and which large companies have to offer.
The Act will level the playing field for new entrants and small
businesses by giving telecommunications business sellers a tax deferral
when the property is bought for cash by a small business
telecommunications company. The Act will also encourage the entry of
new players and the growth of existing small businesses by enabling the
seller of a telecommunications business to claim the tax deferral on
capital gains if it invests the proceeds of any sale of its business in
purchasing an interest in an eligible small business.
In recognition of the convergence of telecommunications services and
the growing importance of wireless and other services as an essential
component of the telecommunications market, the telecommunications
businesses eligible for this capital gains tax deferral are broadly
defined to include not only broadcast and cable TV-type businesses, but
also wireline and wireless telephone service providers and resellers.
To eliminate the potential for abuse, the Act would require the
eligible purchaser to hold any property acquired for three years,
during which time it could only be sold to an unrelated eligible
purchaser. The General Accounting Office is required to thoroughly
audit and report on the administration and effect of the Act every two
years.
Mr. President, this legislation represents a significant step toward
helping to ensure that small companies share a portion of the
investment benefits our tax laws give to major telecommunications
companies. Over the next several months, we look forward to working
with interested organizations to further refine this legislation.
Specifically, we would welcome comments on how to further refine the
concepts of qualified telecommunications business and eligible
purchaser so as to ensure that this legislation meets its goals in the
most fair and effective manner. Moreover, we note that this legislation
contains a ``control'' test that is intended to ensure that this
legislation is not subject to abuse--and actually benefits those that
it is intended to help. We recognize, however, that this control test
may also need to be refined as we go forward.
Mr. President, hallmark developments in the telecommunications
industry have been made by gifted individuals with small companies and
unlimited vision. In this sense the telecommunications industry is a
true microcosm of the American free-market system, in which the
benefits produced by its entrepreneurs generate benefits that extend to
all of us. It is therefore critically important that new entrants and
small businesses have a chance to participate across the broad spectrum
of industries that will make up the telecommunications industry in the
Information Age. The Act will help them do that, and Senator Burns and
I are proud to sponsor it and to work for its enactment.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 3237. A bill to provide for an international scientific commission
to assess changes in global climate patterns, to conduct scientific
studies and analyses on behalf of nations, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
international climate change science commission act
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this bill provides for the creation of an
international scientific commission to assess changes in global climate
patterns and to conduct scientific studies and analysis on behalf of
the nations of the world.
The Commerce Committee held three hearings on the subject of climate
change this year. We heard from several witnesses on the science of
global warming, the impacts of climate change on the United States, and
solutions to climate change.
One of the most salient points of the three hearings was the
importance of good science to the policymaking process. Most
importantly, any action the United States takes in response to claims
of global warming must be based on the best science available and not
on rhetoric or political expedience. We must continue to invest in our
research capabilities to fully understand the scientific interactions
between humans, the land, the ocean, and the atmosphere.
Based upon testimonies received by the Commerce Committee, the
knowledge base in some countries is far greater than in others. To
solve this global problem of climate change, we must rely upon all the
resources and knowledge available to us. We must ensure that the United
States research program is providing the maximum returns on our
investment dollars. It was both surprising and disappointing to
[[Page 24268]]
see that for a recent assessment of the United States, we had to rely
upon two foreign computer models. We must do better.
Mr. President, I feel it is of vital importance that we allow
scientists the opportunity to pursue knowledge as opposed to being
constrained by politics. In introducing this bill entitled,
International Climate Change Science Commission Act, it is my hope and
intention that the membership of the Commission will be filled by those
who are scientists and fully appreciate the pursuit of truth and
knowledge. I hope this commission will provide them with an opportunity
to freely research, discuss, and document their scientific findings.
Mr. President, I realize this bill will not pass this session.
However, it is my hope that by introducing this bill a discussion will
begin in the scientific community of how to better structure this piece
of legislation and to ensure that the best available science is used
for policy decisions. After discussions with the scientific community,
I intend to re-introduce this bill or a new version of the measure next
session and hopefully then move towards its enactment.
I also plan to offer other pieces of legislation next year in this
area. There are several types of actions that may be taken to address
this situation as indicated in the Commerce Committee's hearing,
``Solutions to Climate Change,'' held on September 21, 2000.
______
Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3238. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
protections for individuals who need mental health services, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
the mental health access act of 2000
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on
behalf of the more than 50 million Americans each year who suffer from
mental illness. This bill, the Mental Health Access Act, removes one of
the many barriers to health care faced by those who have been treated
for a mental condition.
The Mental Health Access Act limits the ability of health plans to
redline individuals with a preexisting mental health conditions. I
undertook this initiative when I learned that some of my constituents
were being turned away from health plans in the private non-group
market due solely to a past history of treatment for mental conditions.
Unfortunately, under the current system of care in the United States,
individuals who are undergoing treatment or have a history of treatment
for mental illness may find it difficult to obtain private health
insurance, especially if they must purchase it on their own and do not
have an employer-sponsored group plan available to them. In part this
is because while the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPPAA) protects millions of Americans in the group health
insurance market, it affords few protections for individuals who apply
for private non-group insurance.
The Mental Health Access Act closes this loophole by limiting any
preexisting condition exclusion relating to a mental health condition
to not more than 12 months and reducing this exclusion period by the
total amount of previous creditable coverage. It prohibits any health
insurer that offers health coverage in the individual insurance market
from imposing a preexisting condition exclusion relating to a mental
health condition unless a diagnosis, medical advice or treatment was
recommended or received within the 6 months period to the enrollment
date. And it prohibits health plans in the individual market from
charging higher premiums to individuals based solely on the
determination that the such individual has had a preexisting mental
health condition. These provisions apply to all health plans in the
individual market, regardless of whether a state has enacted an
alternative mechanism (such as a risk pool) to cover individuals with
preexisting health conditions.
The Mental Health Access Act complements ongoing efforts to enhance
parity between mental health services and other health benefits. This
is because parity alone will not help individuals who do not have
access to any affordable health insurance due to preexisting mental
illness discrimination. The Access Act does not mandate that insurers
provide mental health services if they are not already offering such
coverage. It simply prohibits plans in the private non-group market
from redlining individuals who apply for general health insurance based
solely on a past history of treatment for a mental condition.
Recognizing that we are nearing the close of this year's legislative
session. I plan to reintroduced this bill when Congress returns and it
is my hope that many of my colleagues will join me. In the meantime, I
have asked the General Accounting Office (GAO)to examine the extent to
which private health insurers medically underwrite for mental health
conditions by either denying coverage or raising premiums, often to a
level that is unaffordable for many individuals. Specifically, I have
asked the GAO to examine: the types of mental health conditions for
which individual health insurers typically underwrite; the degree to
which there is an actuarial basis for these carrier practices; the
prevalence of medical underwriting for mental health conditions that
result in denying coverage or raising premiums; and the extent of state
laws that prevent or constrain insurers from denying coverage or
raising premiums due to a history of mental health conditions,
including consumer protections such as appeals procedures and access to
information.
It simply does not make sense that just because a person seeks
treatment for mental illness he or she is rendered uninsurable. I
invite my colleagues to enlist in this important initiative to ensure
that such individuals are not discriminated against when applying for
health insurance coverage.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Jeffords,
and Mr. Johnson):
S. 3242. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act to encourage equity investment in rural cooperatives and other
rural businesses, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
national rural cooperative and business equity fund act
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Craig and I are introducing
the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act to create a
new public/private partnership designed to attract equity investment in
cooperatives and other businesses in rural America. Senators Daschle,
Jeffords, and Johnson are cosponsoring this bipartisan measure.
The Iowa 2010 Strategic Planning Council was commissioned by Governor
Vilsack to identify barriers to Iowa's economic development progress
over the next ten years. The council found that two very significant
hurdles were lack of venture funding and access to capital.
The situation is no different in many other rural areas. Many new
rural businesses, particularly cooperatives and farmer-owned
businesses, have tremendous difficulty acquiring equity capital--
especially those involving value-added agricultural processing.
In Iowa alone, I have seen many cases where equity capital would have
made a big difference in the future of a rural business. And every time
we lose an opportunity to help a business, it means fewer jobs, fewer
well-paying jobs, and less income for rural and small town America.
In fact, just recently, in eastern Iowa, a group of turkey producers
joined together to purchase the soon-to-be-closed West Liberty packing
plant from Louis Rich. Ultimately--with the assistance of a USDA loan
guarantee and state and private support--the co-op successfully
purchased the plant. However, they almost went under because of limited
equity. Only by the skin of our teeth are those jobs still in Iowa and
those farmers still enjoying the benefits of cooperative ownership of
that plant. In too many other cases, good ideas have been shattered
because of a lack of equity.
My state has made some progress through the Iowa Department of
Economic Development's ``Community
[[Page 24269]]
Economic Betterment Account'' or CEBA, which recently set aside some
funding for venture capital. But far more resources are needed in Iowa
and across Rural America.
That's why this legislation is so important. If we pass the National
Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund Act, we will help quality
rural cooperatives and businesses succeed and expand, and we will
create jobs and raise the incomes of employees and farmers.
We're opening this bill up to discussion today with the hope of
passing it in the next Congress. I believe this legislation has a
strong start in the support of Senators Craig, Daschle, Jeffords, and
Johnson. We also have the support of a number of national organizations
that are key players in rural economic development including: Agribank,
the American Bankers Association, CoBank, the Farm Credit Council, the
Independent Community Bankers Association, the National Cooperative
Business Association, the National Cooperative Bank, National Farmers
Union, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the
National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Cooperation.
The equity fund created by this legislation will have a 12-person
Board of Directors that would decide which proposals to fund. This
board would include the Secretary of Agriculture and two of his or her
appointees, and the remainder of the Board would be made up of private
investors in the fund. The first $150 million in private sector
investments will be matched dollar for dollar by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture over a three year period. As a compensation for the lower
rate of return in the equity fund relative to other investments, the
Department of Agriculture will guarantee up to 50 percent of an
investment. Debentures, which would be guaranteed, could also be
issued.
Businesses applying for equity from the fund must be sponsored by a
local entity, such as a bank, a regional or local development council,
or a cooperative or economic development group. The businesses must be
based in rural areas, and they cannot be primarily retail businesses.
Cooperatives and other businesses receiving an equity investment from
the fund will be required to invest a substantial amount of their own
capital.
The Fund is intended to support projects that will provide off-farm
income, additional markets for agricultural products, and new business
opportunities in rural communities. A diverse range of viable projects,
representing a variety of business structures, operating in rural
communities of various sizes would be encouraged.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues and those concerned about rural
economic development to examine this measure between Congresses and at
the beginning of the coming Congress. I am hopeful that we will be able
to make the National Rural Cooperative and Business Equity Fund a
reality.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 922
At the request of Mr. Abraham, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 922, a bill to prohibit
the use of the ``Made in the USA'' label on products of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and to deny such products
duty-free and quota-free treatment.
S. 1760
At the request of Mr. Miller, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1760, a bill to provide reliable officers, technology, education,
community prosecutors, and training in our neighborhoods.
S. 2435
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2435, a bill to amend part B of
title IV of the Social Security Act to create a grant program to
promote joint activities among Federal, State, and local public child
welfare and alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment agencies.
S. 2718
At the request of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, the name of the Senator
from Washington (Mr. Gorton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2718, a
bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives
to introduce new technologies to reduce energy consumption in
buildings.
S. 3020
At the request of Mr. Grams, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3020, a bill to require the
Federal Communications Commission to revise its regulations authorizing
the operation of new, low-power FM radio stations.
S. 3045
At the request of Mr. Sessions, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3045, a bill to
improve the quality, timeliness, and credibility of forensic science
services for criminal justice purposes.
S. 3089
At the request of Mr. Hagel, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard)
were added as cosponsors of S. 3089, a bill to authorize the design and
construction of a temporary education center at the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial
S. 3152
At the request of Mr. Roth, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3152, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for distressed
areas, and for other purposes.
S. 3156
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3156, a bill to amend
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to ensure the recovery of the
declining biological diversity of the United States, to reaffirm and
strengthen the commitment of the United States to protect wildlife, to
safeguard the economic and ecological future of children of the United
States, and to provide certainty to local governments, communities, and
individuals in their planning and economic development efforts.
S. 3157
At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3157, a bill to
require the Food and Drug Administration to establish restrictions
regarding the qualifications of physicians to prescribe the abortion
drug commonly known as RU-486.
S. 3169
At the request of Mr. Sessions, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3169, a bill to
amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the International
Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to drugs for minor animal species,
and for other purposes.
S. 3181
At the request of Mr. Hagel, the names of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
Grams), and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham) were added as
cosponsors of S. 3181, a bill to establish the White House Commission
on the National Moment of Remembrance, and for other purposes.
S. 3216
At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3216, a bill to provide
for review in the Court of International Trade of certain
determinations of binational panels under the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
S. 3222
At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3222, a bill to
require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide
assistance through States to eligible weed management entities to
control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private
land.
____________________
[[Page 24270]]
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED
______
DAIRY MARKET ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000
______
CRAIG AMENDMENT NO. 4340
Mr. STEVENS (for Mr. Craig) proposed an amendment to the bill (S.
2773) to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to enhance dairy
markets through dairy product mandatory reporting, and for other
purposes; as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Dairy Market Enhancement Act
of 2000''.
SEC. 2. DAIRY PRODUCT MANDATORY REPORTING.
The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle C--Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting
``SEC. 271. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of this subtitle is to establish a program of
information regarding the marketing of dairy products that--
``(1) provides information that can be readily understood
by producers and other market participants, including
information with respect to prices, quantities sold, and
inventories of dairy products;
``(2) improves the price and supply reporting services of
the Department of Agriculture; and
``(3) encourages competition in the marketplace for dairy
products.
``SEC. 272. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subtitle:
``(1) Dairy products.--The term `dairy products' means
manufactured dairy products that are used by the Secretary to
establish minimum prices for Class III and Class IV milk
under a Federal milk marketing order issued under section 8c
of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted
with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
of 1937.
``(2) Manufacturer.--The term `manufacturer' means any
person engaged in the business of buying milk in commerce for
the purpose of manufacturing dairy products.
``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
``SEC. 273. MANDATORY REPORTING FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
program of mandatory dairy product information reporting that
will--
``(1) provide timely, accurate, and reliable market
information;
``(2) facilitate more informed marketing decisions; and
``(3) promote competition in the dairy product
manufacturing industry.
``(b) Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--In establishing the program, the
Secretary shall only--
``(A)(i) subject to the conditions described in paragraph
(2), require each manufacturer to report to the Secretary
information concerning the price, quantity, and moisture
content of dairy products sold by the manufacturer; and
``(ii) modify the format used to provide the information on
the day before the date of enactment of this subtitle to
ensure that the information can be readily understood by
market participants; and
``(B) require each manufacturer and other person storing
dairy products to report to the Secretary, at a periodic
interval determined by the Secretary, information on the
quantity of dairy products stored.
``(2) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in paragraph
(1)(A)(i) are that--
``(A) the information referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is
required only with respect to those package sizes actually
used to establish minimum prices for Class III or Class IV
milk under a Federal milk marketing order;
``(B) the information referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is
required only to the extent that the information is actually
used to establish minimum prices for Class III or Class IV
milk under a Federal milk marketing order;
``(C) the frequency of the required reporting under
paragraph (1)(A)(i) does not exceed the frequency used to
establish minimum prices for Class III or Class IV milk under
a Federal milk marketing order; and
``(D) the Secretary may exempt from all reporting
requirements any manufacturer that processes and markets less
than 1,000,000 pounds of dairy products per year.
``(c) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to ensure compliance with, and
otherwise carry out, this subtitle.
``(2) Confidentiality.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise directed by the
Secretary or the Attorney General for enforcement purposes,
no officer, employee, or agent of the United States shall
make available to the public information, statistics, or
documents obtained from or submitted by any person under this
subtitle other than in a manner that ensures that
confidentiality is preserved regarding the identity of
persons, including parties to a contract, and proprietary
business information.
``(B) Relation to other requirements.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no facts or information obtained
under this subtitle shall be disclosed in accordance with
section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
``(3) Verification.--The Secretary shall take such actions
as the Secretary considers necessary to verify the accuracy
of the information submitted or reported under this subtitle.
``(4) Enforcement.--
``(A) Unlawful act.--It shall be unlawful and a violation
of this subtitle for any person subject to this subtitle to
willfully fail or refuse to provide, or delay the timely
reporting of, accurate information to the Secretary in
accordance with this subtitle.
``(B) Order.--After providing notice and an opportunity for
a hearing to affected persons, the Secretary may issue an
order against any person to cease and desist from continuing
any violation of this subtitle.
``(C) Appeal.--
``(i) In general.--The order of the Secretary under
subparagraph (B) shall be final and conclusive unless an
affected person files an appeal of the order of the Secretary
in United States district court not later than 30 days after
the date of the issuance of the order.
``(ii) Findings.--A finding of the Secretary under this
paragraph shall be set aside only if the finding is found to
be unsupported by substantial evidence.
``(D) Noncompliance with order.--
``(i) In general.--If a person subject to this subtitle
fails to obey an order issued under this paragraph after the
order has become final and unappealable, or after the
appropriate United States district court has entered a final
judgment in favor of the Secretary, the United States may
apply to the appropriate United States district court for
enforcement of the order.
``(ii) Enforcement.--If the court determines that the order
was lawfully made and duly served and that the person
violated the order, the court shall enforce the order.
``(iii) Civil penalty.--If the court finds that the person
violated the order, the person shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not more than $10,000 for each offense.
``(5) Fees.--The Secretary shall not charge or assess a
user fee, transaction fee, service charge, assessment,
reimbursement fee, or any other fee under this subtitle for--
``(A) the submission or reporting of information;
``(B) the receipt or availability of, or access to,
published reports or information; or
``(C) any other activity required under this subtitle.
``(6) Recordkeeping.--Each person required to report
information to the Secretary under this subtitle shall
maintain, and make available to the Secretary, on request,
original contracts, agreements, receipts, and other records
associated with the sale or storage of any dairy products
during the 2-year period beginning on the date of the
creation of the records.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''.
______
NATIONAL RECORDING PRESERVATION ACT OF 2000
______
DASCHLE (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 4341
Mr. STEVENS (for Mr. Daschle (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Wyden))
proposed an amendment to the bill (H.R. 4846) to establish the National
Recording Registry in the Library of Congress to maintain and preserve
recordings that are culturally, historically, or aesthetically
significant, and for other purposes; as follows:
In section 101, insert ``and collections of sound
recordings'' after ``recordings''.
In section 102(a)(1), insert ``and collections of sound
recordings'' after ``recordings''.
In section 102(a)(1), strike ``10 years'' and insert ``25
years''.
In section 102(a)(3), insert ``and collections of sound
recordings'' after ``recordings''.
In section 102(b), insert ``or collection of sound
recordings'' after ``recording''.
In section 103(a), insert ``or collection of sound
recordings'' after ``recording'' each place it appears.
In section 103(b)(1), insert ``or collection of sound
recordings'' after ``sound recording''.
In section 103(b)(4), insert ``or collection of sound
recordings'' after ``sound recording'' the first place it
appears.
In section 103(c), insert ``or collection of sound
recordings'' after ``sound recording''.
In section 103(c), strike ``recording,'' and insert
``recording or collection,''.
In section 104(a), insert ``(including electronic access)''
after ``reasonable access''.
In the heading for section 122(d)(2), insert ``or
organization'' after ``organization''.
In section 124(a)(1), insert ``and collections of sound
recordings'' after ``recordings'' the first place it appears.
[[Page 24271]]
Add at the end of section 124 the following new subsection:
(c) Encouraging Accessibility to Registry and Out of Print
Recordings.--The Board shall encourage the owners of
recordings and collections of recordings included in the
National Recording Registry and the owners of out of print
recordings to permit digital access to such recordings
through the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center at
Culpeper, Virginia, in order to reduce the portion of the
Nation's recorded cultural legacy which is inaccessible to
students, educators, and others, and may suggest such other
measures as it considers reasonable and appropriate to
increase public accessibility to such recordings.
Insert after section 125 the following new section:
SEC. 126. ESTABLISHMENT OF BYLAWS BY LIBRARIAN.
The Librarian may establish such bylaws (consistent with
this subtitle) as the Librarian considers appropriate to
govern the organization and operation of the Board, including
bylaws relating to appointments and removals of members or
organizations described in section 122(a)(2) which may be
required as a result of changes in the title, membership, or
nature of such organizations occurring after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Redesignate section 133 as section 134 and insert after
section 132 the following new section:
SEC. 133. ENCOURAGING ACTIVITIES TO FOCUS ON RARE AND
ENDANGERED RECORDINGS.
Congress encourages the Librarian and the Board, in
carrying out their duties under this Act, to undertake
activities designed to preserve and bring attention to sound
recordings which are rare and sound recordings and
collections of recordings which are in danger of becoming
lost due to deterioration.
______
DASCHLE AMENDMENT NO. 4342
Mr. STEVENS (for Mr. Daschle) proposed an amendment to the bill (H.R.
4846) supra; as follows:
Amend the title to read as follows: ``A Bill to establish
the National Recording Registry in the Library of Congress to
maintain and preserve sound recordings and collections of
sound recordings that are culturally, historically, or
aesthetically significant, and for other purposes.''.
____________________
HONORING SCULPTOR KORCZAK ZIOLKOWSKI
On October 24, 2000, the Senate amended and passed S. Res. 371, as
follows:
S. Res. 371
Whereas Korczak Ziolkowski was born in Boston,
Massachusetts on September 6, 1908, the 31st anniversary of
the death of Lakota Sioux leader Crazy Horse;
Whereas, although never trained in art or sculpture,
Korczak Ziolkowski began a successful studio career in New
England as a commissioned sculptor at age 24;
Whereas Korczak Ziolkowski's marble sculpture of composer
and Polish leader Ignace Jan Paderewski won first prize at
the 1939 New York World's Fair and prompted Lakota Indian
Chiefs to invite Ziolkowski to carve a memorial for Native
Americans;
Whereas in his invitation letter to Korczak Ziolkowski,
Chief Henry Standing Bear wrote: ``My fellow chiefs and I
would like the white man to know that the red man has great
heroes, too.'';
Whereas in 1939, Korczak Ziolkowski assisted Gutzon Borglum
in carving Mount Rushmore;
Whereas in 1941, Korczak Ziolkowski met with Chief Henry
Standing Bear who taught Korczak more about the life of the
brave Sioux leader Crazy Horse;
Whereas at the age of 34, Korczak Ziolkowski temporarily
put his sculpting career aside when he volunteered for
service in World War II, later landing on Omaha Beach;
Whereas after the war, Korczak Ziolkowski turned down other
sculpting opportunities in order to accept the invitation of
Chief Henry Standing Bear and dedicate the rest of his life
to carving the Crazy Horse Memorial in the Black Hills of
South Dakota;
Whereas on June 3, 1948, when work was begun on the Crazy
Horse Memorial, Korczak Ziolkowski vowed that the memorial
would be a nonprofit educational and cultural project,
financed solely through private, nongovernmental sources, to
honor the Native Americans of North America;
Whereas the Crazy Horse Memorial is a mountain carving-in-
progress, and once completed it will be the largest sculpture
in the world;
Whereas since his death on October 20, 1982, Korczak's wife
Ruth, the Ziolkowski family, and the Crazy Horse Memorial
Foundation have continued to work on the Memorial and to
continue the dream of Korczak Ziolkowski and Chief Henry
Standing Bear; and
Whereas on June 3, 1998, the Memorial entered its second
half century of progress and heralded a new era of work on
the mountain with the completion and dedication of the face
of Crazy Horse: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That
(1) the Senate recognizes--
(A) the admirable efforts of the late Korczak Ziolkowski in
designing and creating the Crazy Horse Memorial;
(B) that the Crazy Horse Memorial represents all North
American Indian tribes, and the noble goal of reconciliation
between peoples; and
(C) that the creation of the Crazy Horse Memorial, from its
inception, has been accomplished through private sources and
without any Federal funding; and
(2) it is the sense of the Senate that the Citizens' Stamp
Advisory Committee should recommend to the Postmaster General
that a commemorative postage stamp be issued in honor of
sculptor Korczak Ziolkowski and the Crazy Horse Memorial for
the 20th anniversary of his death, October 20, 2002.
____________________
AIRPORT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate
a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 2440).
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2440) entitled
``An Act to amend title 49, United States Code, to improve
airport security'', do pass with the following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Airport Security Improvement
Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD CHECKS.
(a) Expansion of FAA Electronic Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall develop, in consultation with
the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the pilot program for individual criminal
history record checks (known as the electronic fingerprint
transmission pilot project) into an aviation industry-wide
program.
(2) Limitation.--The Administrator shall not require any
airport, air carrier, or screening company to participate in
the program described in subsection (a) if the airport, air
carrier, or screening company determines that it would not be
cost effective for it to participate in the program and
notifies the Administrator of that determination.
(b) Application of Expanded Program.--
(1) Interim report.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives a report describing the
status of the Administrator's efforts to utilize the program
described in subsection (a).
(2) Notification concerning sufficiency of operation.--If
the Administrator determines that the program described in
subsection (a) is not sufficiently operational 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act to permit its utilization
in accordance with subsection (a), the Administrator shall
notify the committees referred to in paragraph (1) of that
determination.
(c) Changes in Existing Requirements.--Section 44936(a)(1)
of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``, as the
Administrator decides is necessary to ensure air
transportation security,'';
(2) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``as a screener'' and
inserting ``in the position for which the individual
applied''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Criminal history record checks for screeners and
others.--
``(i) In general.--A criminal history record check shall be
conducted for each individual who applies for a position
described in subparagraph (A), (B)(i), or (B)(ii).
``(ii) Special transition rule.--During the 3-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of this subparagraph, an
individual described in clause (i) may be employed in a
position described in clause (i)--
``(I) in the first 2 years of such 3-year period, for a
period of not to exceed 45 days before a criminal history
record check is completed; and
``(II) in the third year of such 3-year period, for a
period of not to exceed 30 days before a criminal history
record check is completed,
if the request for the check has been submitted to the
appropriate Federal agency and the employment investigation
has been successfully completed.
``(iii) Employment investigation not required for
individuals subject to criminal history record check.--An
employment investigation shall not be required for an
individual who applies for a position described in
subparagraph (A), (B)(i), or (B)(ii), if a criminal history
record check of the individual is completed before the
individual begins employment in such position.
``(iv) Effective date.--This subparagraph shall take
effect--
``(I) 30 days after the date of enactment of this
subparagraph with respect to individuals applying for a
position at an airport that is defined as a Category X
airport in the Federal
[[Page 24272]]
Aviation Administration approved air carrier security
programs required under part 108 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations; and
``(II) 3 years after such date of enactment with respect to
individuals applying for a position at any other airport that
is subject to the requirements of part 107 of such title.
``(F) Exemption.--An employment investigation, including a
criminal history record check, shall not be required under
this subsection for an individual who is exempted under
section 107.31(m) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations,
as in effect on the date of enactment of this
subparagraph.''.
(d) List of Offenses Barring Employment.--Section
44936(b)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(or found not guilty by reason of
insanity)'' after ``convicted'';
(2) in clause (xi) by inserting ``or felony unarmed'' after
``armed'';
(3) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (xii);
(4) by redesignating clause (xiii) as clause (xv) and
inserting after clause (xii) the following:
``(xiii) a felony involving a threat;
``(xiv) a felony involving--
``(I) willful destruction of property;
``(II) importation or manufacture of a controlled
substance;
``(III) burglary;
``(IV) theft;
``(V) dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation;
``(VI) possession or distribution of stolen property;
``(VII) aggravated assault;
``(VIII) bribery; and
``(IX) illegal possession of a controlled substance
punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1
year, or any other crime classified as a felony that the
Administrator determines indicates a propensity for placing
contraband aboard an aircraft in return for money; or''; and
(5) in clause (xv) (as so redesignated) by striking
``clauses (i)-(xii) of this paragraph'' and inserting
``clauses (i) through (xiv)''.
SEC. 3. IMPROVED TRAINING.
(a) Training Standards for Screeners.--Section 44935 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(e) Training Standards for Screeners.--
``(1) Issuance of final rule.--Not later than May 31, 2001,
and after considering comments on the notice published in the
Federal Register for January 5, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 559 et
seq.), the Administrator shall issue a final rule on the
certification of screening companies.
``(2) Classroom instruction.--
``(A) In general.--As part of the final rule, the
Administrator shall prescribe minimum standards for training
security screeners that include at least 40 hours of
classroom instruction before an individual is qualified to
provide security screening services under section 44901.
``(B) Classroom equivalency.--Instead of the 40 hours of
classroom instruction required under subparagraph (A), the
final rule may allow an individual to qualify to provide
security screening services if that individual has
successfully completed a program that the Administrator
determines will train individuals to a level of proficiency
equivalent to the level that would be achieved by the
classroom instruction under subparagraph (A).
``(3) On-the-job training.--In addition to the requirements
of paragraph (2), as part of the final rule, the
Administrator shall require that before an individual may
exercise independent judgment as a security screener under
section 44901, the individual shall--
``(A) complete 40 hours of on-the-job training as a
security screener; and
``(B) successfully complete an on-the-job training
examination prescribed by the Administrator.''.
(b) Computer-Based Training Facilities.--Section 44935 of
title 49, United States Code, is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(f) Accessibility of Computer-Based Training
Facilities.--The Administrator shall work with air carriers
and airports to ensure that computer-based training
facilities intended for use by security screeners at an
airport regularly serving an air carrier holding a
certificate issued by the Secretary of Transportation are
conveniently located for that airport and easily
accessible.''.
SEC. 4. IMPROVING SECURED-AREA ACCESS CONTROL.
Section 44903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Improvement of Secured-Area Access Control.--
``(1) Enforcement.--
``(A) Administrator to publish sanctions.--The
Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a list of
sanctions for use as guidelines in the discipline of
employees for infractions of airport access control
requirements. The guidelines shall incorporate a progressive
disciplinary approach that relates proposed sanctions to the
severity or recurring nature of the infraction and shall
include measures such as remedial training, suspension from
security-related duties, suspension from all duties without
pay, and termination of employment.
``(B) Use of sanctions.--Each airport operator, air
carrier, and security screening company shall include the
list of sanctions published by the Administrator in its
security program. The security program shall include a
process for taking prompt disciplinary action against an
employee who commits an infraction of airport access control
requirements.
``(2) Improvements.--The Administrator shall--
``(A) work with airport operators and air carriers to
implement and strengthen existing controls to eliminate
airport access control weaknesses by January 31, 2001;
``(B) require airport operators and air carriers to develop
and implement comprehensive and recurring training programs
that teach employees their roles in airport security, the
importance of their participation, how their performance will
be evaluated, and what action will be taken if they fail to
perform;
``(C) require airport operators and air carriers to develop
and implement programs that foster and reward compliance with
airport access control requirements and discourage and
penalize noncompliance in accordance with guidelines issued
by the Administrator to measure employee compliance;
``(D) assess and test for compliance with access control
requirements, report findings, and assess penalties or take
other appropriate enforcement actions when noncompliance is
found;
``(E) improve and better administer the Administrator's
security database to ensure its efficiency, reliability, and
usefulness for identification of systemic problems and
allocation of resources;
``(F) improve the execution of the Administrator's quality
control program by January 31, 2001; and
``(G) require airport operators and air carriers to
strengthen access control points in secured areas (including
air traffic control operations areas) to ensure the security
of passengers and aircraft by January 31, 2001.''.
SEC. 5. PHYSICAL SECURITY FOR ATC FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--In order to ensure physical security at
Federal Aviation Administration staffed facilities that house
air traffic control systems, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall act immediately to--
(1) correct physical security weaknesses at air traffic
control facilities so the facilities can be granted physical
security accreditation not later than April 30, 2004; and
(2) ensure that follow-up inspections are conducted,
deficiencies are promptly corrected, and accreditation is
kept current for all air traffic control facilities.
(b) Reports.--Not later than April 30, 2001, and annually
thereafter through April 30, 2004, the Administrator shall
transmit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report on the progress being made in
improving the physical security of air traffic control
facilities, including the percentage of such facilities that
have been granted physical security accreditation.
SEC. 6. EXPLOSIVES DETECTION EQUIPMENT.
Section 44903(c)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Manual process.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator shall issue an
amendment to air carrier security programs to require a
manual process, at explosive detection system screen
locations in airports where explosive detection equipment is
underutilized, which will augment the Computer Assisted
Passenger Prescreening System by randomly selecting
additional checked bags for screening so that a minimum
number of bags, as prescribed by the Administrator, are
examined.
``(ii) Limitation on statutory construction.--Clause (i)
shall not be construed to limit the ability of the
Administrator to impose additional security measures on an
air carrier or a foreign air carrier when a specific threat
warrants such additional measures.
``(iii) Maximum use of explosive detection equipment.--In
prescribing the minimum number of bags to be examined under
clause (i), the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use
of the explosive detection equipment.''.
SEC. 7. AIRPORT NOISE STUDY.
(a) In General.--Section 745 of the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (49
U.S.C. 47501 note; 114 Stat. 178) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by striking ``GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE'';
(2) in subsection (a) by striking ``Comptroller General of
the United States shall'' and inserting ``Secretary shall
enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences
to'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``Comptroller General'' and inserting
``National Academy of Sciences'';
(B) by striking paragraph (1);
(C) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
(D) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting a period;
(E) by striking paragraph (6); and
(F) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) as
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), respectively;
(4) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the agreement entered into under subsection (a), the National
Academy of Sciences shall transmit to the Secretary a report
on the results of the study. Upon receipt of the report, the
Secretary shall transmit a copy of the report to the
appropriate committees of Congress.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for such
Act (114 Stat. 61 et seq.) is
[[Page 24273]]
amended by striking item relating to section 745 and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 745. Airport noise study.''.
SEC. 8. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Federal Aviation Management Advisory Council.--Section
106(p)(2) is amended by striking ``15'' and inserting ``18''.
(b) National Parks Air Tour Management.--Title VIII of the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century (49 U.S.C. 40128 note; 114 Stat. 185 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 803(c) by striking ``40126'' each place it
appears and inserting ``40128'';
(2) in section 804(b) by striking ``40126(e)(4)'' and
inserting ``40128(f)''; and
(3) in section 806 by striking ``40126'' and inserting
``40128''.
(c) Restatement of Provision Without Substantive Change.--
Section 41104(b) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), an
air carrier, including an indirect air carrier, may not
provide, in aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger
seats, regularly scheduled charter air transportation for
which the public is provided in advance a schedule containing
the departure location, departure time, and arrival location
of the flight unless such air transportation is to and from
an airport that has an airport operating certificate issued
under part 139 of title 14, Code or Federal Regulations (or
any subsequent similar regulation).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Exception.--This subsection does not apply to any
airport in the State of Alaska or to any airport outside the
United States.''.
SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, this Act and the
amendments made by this Act shall take effect 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the Senate agree to the
amendment of the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have just passed the Aviation
Security Improvement Act of 2000. I am very pleased that we have been
able, in a very bipartisan way, to pass this bill. I would like to just
talk a little bit about how we came to pass the Aviation Security Act
of 2000.
Thanks to Senator Slade Gorton, the chairman of the Aviation
Subcommittee, I was able to chair a hearing in which we heard from the
FAA, particularly Admiral Flynn, about the state of our airport
security. ``What is the state of our airport security?'' we asked. We
wanted to know if we were doing everything we could to give our
traveling public the most security possible.
Admiral Flynn did a report and shared that with the Members of the
Senate who came to the hearing. Every single Senator who attended the
hearing became a cosponsor of the bill that we have just passed because
there were some areas that we could clearly see needed to be made more
strict, more stringent, just to make sure that we take every single
measure we can to make our airports totally secure. Not that they are
not, but there were some areas in which we could do better.
So after the hearing and because of the outstanding testimony of
Admiral Flynn of the FAA, we did put together a bill that was quite
bipartisan. Chairman John McCain of the Commerce Committee came
together with Chairman Slade Gorton of the Aviation Subcommittee.
Senators Hollings, Inouye, Bryan, and Rockefeller all became immediate
cosponsors of the bill. With that bipartisan group, we were able to
make the changes that have been passed by the House and now will go to
the President.
Six hundred million travelers will pass through U.S. airports. Their
safety depends on the soundness of the inspection points and the
checkpoints, and we all have been through those monitors and we know
how important it is that we have the best equipment and the best
trained technicians to make sure we do not have any kind of firearms or
explosives of any kind going into our airplanes.
So we were able to pass this bill. I just want to make a couple of
the points that are important in the bill.
First, today, a person who has a lapse in employment history--whether
it would be a year, 18 months, 2 years--would have a criminal
background check done before they could be hired to be an airport
baggage screener.
Under the bill that we are passing today, there will be a criminal
history record check on every person who becomes a baggage screener.
Secondly, we looked at the airport training requirements for airport
baggage screeners. We found that in the most industrialized countries
there is a minimum of 40 hours of required training before a person can
become a baggage screener, but in America the standard is 8 hours.
The committee and the Congress believe we need to have more hours of
required training and a test for baggage screeners. That will happen
because of the bill we have just passed.
Third, the security procedures in sensitive areas, such as the air
traffic control towers, will be beefed up. And there will be prescribed
security protocols and sanctions for people who violate those
protocols.
And fourth, the new generation of explosive detection systems will be
utilized at a higher rate because of the bill we have passed today.
I think we have done a very good job. I am very pleased that we had
such a bipartisan effort on this piece of legislation. It could not
have happened without the House and the Senate working together and so
many people who did come into the negotiations on this bill. The
leadership of our chairman, John McCain, and our subcommittee chairman,
Slade Gorton, were essential, along with Senators Hollings, Inouye,
Bryan, and Rockefeller.
I also thank the staff who worked so hard. As you know, many times
Senators have 10 things that are being asked of them at any one time.
Without very good staff work, this would not have passed. So I
especially thank my Commerce Committee staff legislative aid, Joe
Mondello, who did yeoman service in making sure the bill got through
committee and worked out all the little things that came up that could
have unraveled the bill and did not. On Senator McCain's staff, Mike
Reynolds, and Rob Chamberlin, who also did terrific work in making sure
we got this expeditiously through the committee in the last hours of
the session, because we did not want to wait 60 days before we could
bring this back next year. It is too important.
The air traveling public deserve to have the very best airport
security. That is what this bill will allow. I believe the President
will sign the bill. I urge him to do so.
Thank you, Mr. President.
____________________
APPOINTMENTS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader,
pursuant to Public Law 106-173, announces the following appointments to
the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission: The Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning), and Dr. Gabor S. Boritt, of Pennsylvania.
____________________
JAMES MADISON COMMEMORATION COMMISSION ACT
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. 3137.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3137) to establish a commission to commemorate
the 250th anniversary of the birth of James Madison.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is passing S.
3137, the James Madison Commemoration Commission Act. I was an original
cosponsor of this legislation, which will establish a bipartisan
commission to recognize the life and accomplishments of James Madison
on the 250th anniversary of his birth, March 16, 2001.
Among his many accomplishments, James Madison was the primary author
of the U.S. Constitution, a document so brilliantly constructed that it
has been amended only 27 times in our Nation's history. The first 10
amendments were ratified as our Bill of Rights in 1791, over two
centuries ago. There have been just 17 additional amendments.
Our tribute to the Father of the Constitution comes in the same year
that
[[Page 24274]]
the Senate defeated no less than three ill-conceived proposals to amend
his handiwork. I am proud that we were good stewards of the
Constitution, and that the anniversary of Madison's birth will truly be
a cause for celebration.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
be read a second and third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3137) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 3137
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``James
Madison Commemoration Commission Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Congressional findings.
Sec. 3. Establishment.
Sec. 4. Duties.
Sec. 5. Membership.
Sec. 6. Powers.
Sec. 7. Staffing and support.
Sec. 8. Contributions.
Sec. 9. Reports.
Sec. 10. Audit of financial transactions.
Sec. 11. Termination.
Sec. 12. Authorization of appropriations.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) March 16, 2001, marks the 250th anniversary of the
birth of James Madison;
(2) as a delegate to the Continental Congress, and to the
Annapolis Convention of 1786, James Madison foresaw the need
for a more effective national government and was a persuasive
advocate for such a government at the Philadelphia
Constitutional Convention of 1787;
(3) James Madison worked tirelessly and successfully at the
Constitutional Convention to mold a national charter, the
United States Constitution, that combined both energy and
restraint, empowering the legislature, the executive, and the
judiciary, within a framework of limited government,
separated powers, and a system of federalism;
(4) James Madison was an eloquent proponent of the first 10
amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights;
(5) James Madison faithfully served his country as a
Representative in Congress from 1789 to 1797, as Secretary of
State from 1801 to 1809, and as President of the United
States from 1809 to 1817;
(6) as President, James Madison showed courage and resolute
will in leading the United States to victory over Great
Britain in the War of 1812;
(7) James Madison's political writings, as exemplified by
his Notes on the Federal Convention and his contributions to
The Federalist Papers, are among the most distinguished of
American state papers;
(8) by his learning, his devotion to ordered liberty, and
by the force of his intellect, James Madison made an
indispensable contribution to the American tradition of
democratic constitutional republicanism embodied in the
Constitution of the United States, and is justifiably
acclaimed as father of the Constitution;
(9) it is appropriate to remember, honor, and renew the
legacy of James Madison for the American people and, indeed
for all mankind; and
(10) as the Nation approaches March 16, 2001, marking the
anniversary of the birth of James Madison, it is appropriate
to establish a commission for the commemoration of that
anniversary.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.
A commission to be known as the James Madison Commemoration
Commission (in this Act referred to as the ``Commission'')
and a committee to be known as the James Madison
Commemoration Advisory Committee (in this Act referred to as
the ``Advisory Committee'') are established.
SEC. 4. DUTIES.
(a) Commission.--The Commission shall--
(1) in cooperation with the Advisory Committee and the
Library of Congress, direct the Government Printing Office to
compile and publish a substantial number of copies of a book
(as directed by the Commission) containing a selection of the
most important writings of James Madison and tributes to him
by members of the Commission and other persons that the
Commission deems appropriate;
(2) in cooperation with the Advisory Committee and the
Library of Congress, plan and coordinate 1 or more symposia,
at least 1 of which will be held on March 16, 2001, and all
of which will be devoted to providing a better understanding
of James Madison's contribution to American political
culture;
(3) in cooperation with the Advisory Committee recognize
such other events celebrating James Madison's birth and life
as official events of the Commission;
(4) develop and coordinate any other activities relating to
the anniversary of the birth of James Madison as may be
appropriate;
(5) accept essay papers (via the Internet or otherwise)
from students attending public and private institutions of
elementary and secondary education in any State regarding
James Madison's life and contributions to America and award
certificates to students who author exceptional papers on
this subject; and
(6) bestow honorary memberships to the Commission or to the
Advisory Committee upon such persons as it deems appropriate.
(b) Advisory Committee.--The Advisory Committee shall--
(1) submit a suggested selection of James Madison's most
important writings to the Commission for the Commission to
consider for inclusion in the book printed as provided in
subsection (a)(1);
(2) submit a list and description of events concerning the
birth and life of James Madison to the Commission for the
Commission's consideration in recognizing such events as
official ``Commission Events''; and
(3) make such other recommendations to the Commission as a
majority of its members deem appropriate.
SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP.
(a) Membership of the Commission.--
(1) Number and appointment.--The Commission shall be
composed of 19 members, as follows:
(A) The Chief Justice of the United States or such
individual's delegate who is an Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
(B) The Majority Leader and the Minority Leader of the
Senate or each such individual's delegate who is a Member of
the Senate.
(C) The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives or each such
individual's delegate who is a Member of the House of
Representatives.
(D) The Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary of the Senate or each such individual's
delegate who is a member of such committee.
(E) The Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary of the House of Representatives or each such
individual's delegate who is a member of such committee.
(F) Two Members of the Senate selected by the Majority
Leader of the Senate and 2 Members of the Senate selected by
the Minority Leader of the Senate.
(G) Two members of the House of Representatives selected by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 2 Members of
the House of Representatives selected by the Minority Leader
of the House of Representatives.
(H) Two members of the executive branch selected by the
President of the United States.
(2) Chairman and vice chairman.--The Chief Justice of the
United States shall serve as Chairman of the Commission and
the members of the Commission shall select a vice chairman
from its members, unless the Chief Justice appoints a
delegate to serve in his stead, in which circumstance, the
members of the Commission shall select a chairman and vice
chairman from its members.
(b) Membership of the Advisory Committee.--
(1) Number and appointment.--The Advisory Committee shall
be composed of 14 members, as follows:
(A) The Archivist of the United States or such individual's
delegate.
(B) The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution or such
individual's delegate.
(C) The Executive Director of Montpelier, the home of James
Madison, and the 2001 Planning Committee of Montpelier or
such individual's delegate.
(D) The President of James Madison University in
Harrisonburg, Virginia or such individual's delegate.
(E) The Director of the James Madison Center, James Madison
University in Harrisonburg, Virginia or such individual's
delegate.
(F) The President of the James Madison Memorial Fellowship
Foundation or such individual's delegate.
(G) Two members, who are not Members of Congress but have
expertise on the legal and historical significance of James
Madison, selected by the Majority Leader of the Senate, and 2
members, who are not Members of Congress but have expertise
on the legal and historical significance of James Madison,
selected by the Minority Leader of the Senate.
(H) Two members, who are not Members of Congress but who
have expertise on the legal and historical significance of
James Madison, selected by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and 2 members, who are not Members of
Congress but who have expertise on the legal and historical
significance of James Madison, selected by the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives.
(2) Chairman and vice chairman.--The members of the
Advisory Committee shall select a chairman and vice chairman
from its members.
(c) Terms.--Each member of the Commission shall be selected
and each member of the Advisory Committee shall be selected
not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act and shall serve for the
[[Page 24275]]
life of the Commission and the Advisory Committee,
respectively.
(d) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled
in the same manner in which the original appointment was made
in subsection (a). A vacancy in the Advisory Committee shall
be filled by the person holding the office named in
subsection (b) or his designate.
(e) Compensation.--
(1) Rates of pay.--Members of the Commission and the
Advisory Committee shall serve without pay.
(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission and the
Advisory Committee may receive travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702
and 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
(f) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of its
chairman or a majority of its members. The Advisory Committee
shall meet at the call of the chairman or a majority of its
members.
(g) Approval of Actions.--All official actions of the
Commission under this Act shall be approved by the
affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the members.
All official actions of the Advisory Committee under this Act
shall be approved by the affirmative vote of not less than a
majority of the members.
SEC. 6. POWERS.
(a) Delegation of Authority.--Any member or staff person of
the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any
action that the Commission is authorized to take by this Act.
(b) Contract Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may procure services and
property, and make or enter into contracts, leases, or other
legal agreements, in order to carry out this Act.
(2) Restriction.--The contracts, leases, or other legal
agreements made or entered into by the Commission shall not
extend beyond the date of termination of the Commission.
(3) Termination.--All supplies and property acquired by the
Commission under this Act that remain in the possession of
the Commission on the date of termination of the Commission
shall become the property of the General Services
Administration upon the date of the termination.
(c) Information.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from
any Federal agency information necessary to enable it to
carry out this Act. Upon request of the chairperson of the
Commission, the head of the Federal agency shall furnish the
information to the Commission.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
information that the Commission is prohibited to secure or
request by another law.
(d) Rules and Regulations.--The Commission may adopt such
rules and regulations as may be necessary to conduct meetings
and carry out its duties under this Act. The Commission may
also adopt such rules for the Advisory Committee.
(e) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
Federal agencies, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate may mail items on behalf of the Commission.
(f) Necessary and Proper Powers.--The Commission may
exercise such other powers as are necessary and proper in
carrying out and effecting the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 7. STAFFING AND SUPPORT.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives, and the Librarian of Congress shall
provide the Commission and the Advisory Committee with such
assistance, including staff support, facilities, and supplies
at no charge, as may be necessary to carry out its duties.
SEC. 8. CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Donations.--The Commission may accept donations of
money, personal services, and property, both real and
personal, including books, manuscripts, miscellaneous printed
matter, memorabilia, relics, and other materials related to
James Madison.
(b) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Any funds donated to the Commission may be
used by the Commission to carry out this Act. The source and
amount of such funds shall be listed in the interim and final
reports required under section 9.
(2) Procurement requirements.--
(A) In general.--In addition to any procurement requirement
otherwise applicable to the Commission, the Commission shall
conduct procurements of property or services involving
donated funds pursuant to the small purchase procedures
required by section 303(g) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253(g)).
Section 15(j) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(j))
shall not apply to such procurements.
(B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term ``donated
funds'' means any funds of which 50 percent or more derive
from funds donated to the Commission.
(c) Volunteer Services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of
title 31, United States Code, the Commission may accept and
use voluntary and uncompensated services as the Commission
determines necessary.
(d) Remaining Funds.--Funds remaining upon the date of
termination of the Commission shall be used to ensure the
proper disposition of property donated to the Commission as
specified in the final report required by section 9.
SEC. 9. REPORTS.
(a) Interim Report.--Not later than February 15, 2001, the
Commission shall prepare and submit to the President and
Congress an interim report detailing the activities of the
Commission, including an accounting of funds received and
expended by the Commission, during the period beginning on
the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31,
2000.
(b) Final Report.--Not later than February 15, 2002, the
Commission shall submit to the President and to Congress a
final report containing--
(1) a summary of the activities of the Commission;
(2) a final accounting of funds received and expended by
the Commission;
(3) the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Commission;
(4) specific recommendations concerning the final
disposition of historically significant items donated to the
Commission under section 8(a), if any; and
(5) any additional views of any member of the Commission
concerning the Commission's recommendations that such member
requests to be included in the final report.
SEC. 10. AUDIT OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.
(a) In General.--The Inspector General of the General
Services Administration shall audit financial transactions of
the Commission, including financial transactions involving
donated funds, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. In conducting an audit pursuant to this section,
the Inspector General shall have access to all books,
accounts, financial records, reports, files, and other
papers, items, or property in use by the Commission, as
necessary to facilitate the audit, and shall be afforded full
facilities for verifying transactions with the balances or
securities held by depositories, fiscal agents, and
custodians.
(b) Audit Reports.--Not later than March 15, 2001, the
Inspector General of the General Services Administration
shall submit to the President and to Congress a report
detailing the results of any audit of the financial
transactions of the Commission conducted before January 1,
2001. Not later than March 15, 2002, such Inspector General
shall submit to the President and to Congress a report
detailing the results of any audit of the financial
transactions of the Commission conducted during the period
beginning on January 1, 2001, and ending on December 31,
2001.
SEC. 11. TERMINATION.
The Commission and the Advisory Committee shall terminate
not later than 60 days following submission of the final
report required by section 9.
SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $250,000 for fiscal year 2001.
____________________
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS CRIMINALS ACT OF 1999
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 859, S. 1898.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1898) to provide protection against the risks to
the public that are inherent in the interstate transportation
of violent prisoners.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on the Juidiciary, with an
amendment; as follows:
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed
in italic.]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Interstate Transportation of
Dangerous Criminals Act of 2000'' or ``Jeanna's Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Increasingly, States are turning to private prisoner
transport companies as an alternative to their own personnel
or the United States Marshals Service when transporting
violent prisoners.
(2) The transport process can last for days if not weeks,
as violent prisoners are dropped off and picked up at a
network of hubs across the country.
(3) Escapes by violent prisoners during transport by
private prisoner transport companies have occurred.
(4) Oversight by the Attorney General is required to
address these problems.
(5) While most governmental entities may prefer to use, and
will continue to use, fully trained and sworn law enforcement
officers when transporting violent prisoners, fiscal or
logistical concerns may make the use of highly
[[Page 24276]]
specialized private prisoner transport companies an option.
Nothing in this Act should be construed to mean that
governmental entities should contract with private prisoner
transport companies to move violent prisoners; however when a
government entity opts to use a private prisoner transport
company to move violent prisoners, then the company should be
subject to regulation in order to enhance public safety.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Crime of violence.--The term ``crime of violence'' has
the same meaning as in section 924(c)(3) of title 18, United
States Code.
(2) Private prisoner transport company.--The term ``private
prisoner transport company'' means any entity, other than the
United States, a State, or an inferior political subdivision
of a State, which engages in the business of the transporting
for compensation, individuals committed to the custody of any
State or of an inferior political subdivision of a State, or
any attempt thereof.
(3) Violent prisoner.--The term ``violent prisoner'' means
any individual in the custody of a State or an inferior
political subdivision of a State who has previously been
convicted of or is currently charged with a crime of violence
or any similar statute of a State or the inferior political
subdivisions of a State, or any attempt thereof.
SEC. 4. FEDERAL REGULATION OF PRISONER TRANSPORT COMPANIES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation
with the American Correctional Association and the private
prisoner transport industry, shall promulgate regulations
relating to the transportation of violent prisoners in or
affecting interstate commerce.
(b) Standards and Requirements.--The regulations shall
include the following:
(1) Minimum standards for background checks and
preemployment drug testing for potential employees, including
requiring criminal background checks, to disqualify persons
with a felony conviction or domestic violence conviction as
defined by section 921 of title 18, United States Code, for
eligibility for employment. Preemployment drug testing will
be in accordance with applicable State laws.
(2) Minimum standards for the length and type of training
that employees must undergo before they can transport
prisoners not to exceed 100 hours of preservice training
focusing on the transportation of prisoners. Training shall
be in the areas of use of restraints, searches, use of force,
including use of appropriate weapons and firearms, CPR, map
reading, and defensive driving.
(3) Restrictions on the number of hours that employees can
be on duty during a given time period. Such restriction shall
not be more stringent than current applicable rules and
regulations concerning hours of service promulgated under the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
(4) Minimum standards for the number of personnel that must
supervise violent prisoners. Such standards shall provide the
transport entity with appropriate discretion, and, absent
more restrictive requirements contracted for by the procuring
government entity, shall not exceed a requirement of 1 agent
for every 6 violent prisoners.
(5) Minimum standards for employee uniforms and
identification that require wearing of a uniform with a badge
or insignia identifying the employee as a transportation
officer.
(6) Standards establishing categories of violent prisoners
required to wear brightly colored clothing clearly
identifying them as prisoners, when appropriate.
(7) Minimum requirements for the restraints that must be
used when transporting violent prisoners, to include leg
shackles and double-locked handcuffs, when appropriate.
(8) A requirement that when transporting violent prisoners,
private prisoner transport companies notify local law
enforcement officials 24 hours in advance of any scheduled
stops in their jurisdiction.
(9) A requirement that in the event of an escape by a
violent prisoner, private prisoner transport company
officials shall immediately notify appropriate law
enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the escape
occurs, and the governmental entity that contracted with the
private prisoner transport company for the transport of the
escaped violent prisoner.
(10) Minimum standards for the safety of violent prisoners
in accordance with applicable Federal and State law.
(c) Federal Standards.--Except for the requirements of
subsection (b)(6), the regulations promulgated under this Act
shall not provide stricter standards with respect to private
prisoner transport companies than are applicable, without
exception, to the United States Marshals Service, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service when transporting violent prisoners under comparable
circumstances.
SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Penalty.--Any person who is found in violation of the
regulations established by this Act shall--
(1) be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in
an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each violation and, in
addition, to the United States for the costs of prosecution;
and
(2) make restitution to any entity of the United States, of
a State, or of an inferior political subdivision of a State,
which expends funds for the purpose of apprehending any
violent prisoner who escapes from a prisoner transport
company as the result, in whole or in part, of a violation of
regulations promulgated pursuant to section 4(a).
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support
for S. 1898, the Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act,
also known as ``Jeanna's bill.'' I worked with Senator Dorgan in
developing this legislation, which passed the Judiciary Committee in
September with unanimous bipartisan support. I praise Senator Dorgan's
leadership, and am proud to be an original cosponsor.
Kyle Bell was sentenced to life in prison for the brutal murder of
11-year old Jeanna North. On October 13, 1999, Bell escaped, while
being transferred interstate by a private prisoner transport company.
He picked the locks on his handcuffs and leg irons, and slipped off the
bus while it was stopped for gas in New Mexico. He was wearing his own
street clothes and shoes. The guards did not notice that Bell was
missing until nine hours later, and then delayed in notifying New
Mexico authorities.
Kyle Bell's escape is not an isolated case. In recent years, there
have been several escapes by violent criminals when vans operated by
private prisoner transport companies broke down or guards fell asleep
on duty. There have also been an alarming number of traffic accidents
in which prisoners were seriously injured or killed because drivers
were tired, inattentive or poorly trained.
Privatization of prisons and prisoner transportation services may be
cost efficient, but public safety must come first. Jeanna's bill,
S.1898, requires the Attorney General to establish some basic, common-
sense guidelines for private companies that transport violent criminals
across State lines, including:
minimum standards for pre-employment background checks;
minimum standards for training employees;
minimum standards for the identification, restraint, and safety of
violent prisoners; and
a requirement that private prisoner transport companies notify local
law enforcement in advance of any stops in their jurisdiction.
A violation is punishable by a $10,000 fine, plus restitution for the
cost of re-capturing any violent prisoner who escapes as the result of
such violation. This should create a healthy incentive for companies to
abide by the regulations and operate responsibly.
As Senator Dorgan has pointed out, a company hauling hazardous waste,
cattle, or even circus animals has to meet certain minimum standards.
Yet there are no requirements for hauling violent criminals around the
country.
Jeanna's bill has been endorsed by a wide range of law enforcement
and victims' rights groups, including the National Sheriff's
Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the
Fraternal Order of Police, the California Correctional Peace Officers
Association, the New York Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent
Association, the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children,
the KlassKids Foundation, and many others. It will go a long way toward
preventing more violent criminals from escaping. I am pleased that the
Senate is finally passing this important legislation, and urge the
House of Representatives to do the same.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any
statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 1898), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
[[Page 24277]]
AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3239,
introduced earlier today by Senators Helms and Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3239) to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide special immigrant status for certain United
States international broadcasting employees.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 3239) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 3239
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR CERTAIN UNITED STATES
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING EMPLOYEES.
(a) Special Immigrant Category.--Section 101(a)(27) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (K);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (L);
and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(M) subject to the numerical limitations of section
203(b)(4), an immigrant who seeks to enter the United States
to work as a broadcaster in the United States for the
International Broadcasting Bureau of the Broadcasting Board
of Governors, or for a grantee of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, and the immigrant's accompanying spouse and
children.''.
(b) Numerical Limitations.--
(1) In general.--Section 203(b)(4) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(4)) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, and not more
than 100 may be made available in any fiscal year to special
immigrants, excluding spouses and children, who are described
in section 101(a)(27)(M)''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to visas made available in any fiscal year
beginning on or after October 1, 2000.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 2000
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3218, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3218) to amend title 31, United States Code,
to prohibit the appearance of Social Security account numbers
on or through unopened mailings of checks or other drafts
issued on public money in the Treasury.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3218) was read the third time and passed.
____________________
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN BELARUS
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration
of S. Con. Res. 153 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 153) expressing the
sense of Congress with respect to the parliamentary elections
held in Belarus on October 15, 2000, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to
the resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Con. Res. 153) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Con. Res. 153
Whereas on October 15, 2000, Aleksandr Lukashenko and his
authoritarian regime conducted an illegitimate and
undemocratic parliamentary election in an effort to further
strengthen the power and control his authoritarian regime
exercises over the people of the Republic of Belarus;
Whereas during the time preceding this election the regime
of Aleksandr Lukashenko attempted to intimidate the
democratic opposition by beating, harassing, arresting, and
sentencing its members for supporting a boycott of the
October 15 election even though Belarus does not contain a
legal ban on efforts to boycott elections;
Whereas the democratic opposition in Belarus was denied
fair and equal access to state-controlled television and
radio and was instead slandered by the state-controlled
media;
Whereas on September 13, 2000, Belarusian police seized
100,000 copies of a special edition of the Belarusian Free
Trade Union newspaper, Rabochy, dedicated to the democratic
opposition's efforts to promote a boycott of the October 15
election;
Whereas Aleksandr Lukashenko and his regime denied the
democratic opposition in Belarus seats on the Central
Election Commission, thereby violating his own pledge to
provide the democratic opposition a role in this Commission;
Whereas Aleksandr Lukashenko and his regime denied the vast
majority of independent candidates opposed to his regime the
right to register as candidates in this election;
Whereas Aleksandr Lukashenko and his regime dismissed
recommendations presented by the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for making the election law
in Belarus consistent with OSCE standards;
Whereas in Grodno, police loyal to Aleksandr Lukashenko
summoned voters to participate in this illegitimate election
for parliament;
Whereas the last genuinely free and fair parliamentary
election in Belarus took place in 1995 and from it emerged
the 13th Supreme Soviet whose democratically and
constitutionally derived authorities and powers have been
undercut by the authoritarian regime of Aleksandr Lukashenko;
and
Whereas on October 11, the Lukashenko regime froze the bank
accounts and seized the equipment of the independent
publishing company, Magic, where most of the independent
newspapers in Minsk are published: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring),
SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON BELARUS PARLIAMENTARY
ELECTIONS.
Congress hereby--
(1) declares that--
(A) the period preceding the elections held in Belarus held
on October 15, 2000, was plagued by continued human rights
abuses and a climate of fear for which the regime of
Aleksandr Lukashenko is responsible;
(B) these elections were conducted in the absence of a
democratic electoral law;
(C) the Lukashenko regime purposely denied the democratic
opposition access to state-controlled media; and
(D) these elections were for seats in a parliament that
lacks real constitutional power and democratic legitimacy;
(2) declares its support for the Belarus' democratic
opposition, commends the efforts of the opposition to boycott
these illegitimate parliamentary elections, and expresses the
hopes of Congress that the citizens of Belarus will soon
benefit from true freedom and democracy;
(3) reaffirms its recognition of the 13th Supreme Soviet as
the sole and democratically and constitutionally legitimate
legislative body of Belarus; and
(4) notes that, as the legitimate parliament of Belarus,
the 13th Supreme Soviet should continue to represent Belarus
in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DISAPPEARANCES OF INDIVIDUALS
AND POLITICAL DETENTIONS IN BELARUS.
It is the sense of Congress that the President should call
upon Aleksandr Lukashenko and his regime to--
(1) provide a full accounting of the disappearances of
individuals in that country, including the disappearance of
Viktor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky, Yuri Zakharenka, and
Dmitry Zavadsky; and
(2) release Vladimir Kudinov, Andrei Klimov, and all others
imprisoned in Belarus for their political views.
SEC. 3. TRANSMITTAL OF RESOLUTION.
The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this
resolution to the President.
____________________
[[Page 24278]]
JAMES GUELFF BODY ARMOR ACT OF 2000
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 733, S.
783, by Senator Dianne Feinstein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 783) to limit access to body armor by violent
felons and to facilitate the donation of Federal surplus body
armor to State and local law enforcement agencies.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with an
amendment, as follows:
(Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed
in italic.)
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``James Guelff Body Armor Act
of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) nationally, police officers and ordinary citizens are
facing increased danger as criminals use more deadly
weaponry, body armor, and other sophisticated assault gear;
(2) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the
interstate movement of body armor and other assault gear;
(3) there is a traffic in body armor moving in or otherwise
affecting interstate commerce, and existing Federal controls
over such traffic do not adequately enable the States to
control this traffic within their own borders through the
exercise of their police power;
(4) recent incidents, such as the murder of San Francisco
Police Officer James Guelff by an assailant wearing 2 layers
of body armor and a 1997 bank shoot out in north Hollywood,
California, between police and 2 heavily armed suspects
outfitted in body armor, demonstrate the serious threat to
community safety posed by criminals who wear body armor
during the commission of a violent crime;
(5) of the approximately 1,200 officers killed in the line
of duty since 1980, more than 30 percent could have been
saved by body armor, and the risk of dying from gunfire is 14
times higher for an officer without a bulletproof vest;
(6) the Department of Justice has estimated that 25 percent
of State and local police are not issued body armor;
(7) the Federal Government is well-equipped to grant local
police departments access to body armor that is no longer
needed by Federal agencies; and
(8) Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce
clause and other provisions of the Constitution of the United
States, to enact legislation to regulate interstate commerce
that affects the integrity and safety of our communities.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Body armor.--The term ``body armor'' means any product
sold or offered for sale, in interstate or foreign commerce,
as personal protective body covering intended to protect
against gunfire, regardless of whether the product is to be
worn alone or is sold as a complement to another product or
garment.
(2) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means an agency of the United States, a State, or a
political subdivision of a State, authorized by law or by a
government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention,
detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of
criminal law.
(3) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement
officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee of the United
States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State,
authorized by law or by a government agency to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or
prosecution of any violation of criminal law.
SEC. 4. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO
BODY ARMOR.
(a) Sentencing Enhancement.--The United States Sentencing
Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to
provide an appropriate sentencing enhancement, increasing the
offense level not less than 2 levels, for any offense in
which the defendant used body armor.
(b) Applicability.--No amendment made to the Federal
Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to this section shall apply if
the Federal offense in which the body armor is used
constitutes a violation of, attempted violation of, or
conspiracy to violate the civil rights of any person by a law
enforcement officer acting under color of the authority of
such law enforcement officer.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF PURCHASE, USE, OR POSSESSION OF BODY
ARMOR BY VIOLENT FELONS.
(a) Definition of Body Armor.--Section 921(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(35) The term `body armor' means any product sold or
offered for sale, in interstate or foreign commerce, as
personal protective body covering intended to protect against
gunfire, regardless of whether the product is to be worn
alone or is sold as a complement to another product or
garment.''.
(b) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession
of body armor by violent felons
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), it
shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess
body armor, if that person has been convicted of a felony
that is--
``(1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or
``(2) an offense under State law that would constitute a
crime of violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States.
``(b) Affirmative Defense.--
``(1) In general.--It shall be an affirmative defense under
this section that--
``(A) the defendant obtained prior written certification
from his or her employer that the defendant's purchase, use,
or possession of body armor was necessary for the safe
performance of lawful business activity; and
``(B) the use and possession by the defendant were limited
to the course of such performance.
``(2) Employer.--In this subsection, the term `employer'
means any other individual employed by the defendant's
business that supervises defendant's activity. If that
defendant has no supervisor, prior written certification is
acceptable from any other employee of the business.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The analysis for chapter 44 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor
by violent felons.''.
(c) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Whoever knowingly violates section 931 shall be fined
under this title, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or
both.''.
SEC. 6. DONATION OF FEDERAL SURPLUS BODY ARMOR TO STATE AND
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``Federal
agency'' and ``surplus property'' have the meanings given
such terms under section 3 of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472).
(b) Donation of Body Armor.--Notwithstanding section 203 of
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
(40 U.S.C. 484), the head of a Federal agency may donate body
armor directly to any State or local law enforcement agency,
if such body armor is--
(1) in serviceable condition; and
(2) surplus property.
(c) Notice to Administrator.--The head of a Federal agency
who donates body armor under this section shall submit to the
Administrator of General Services a written notice
identifying the amount of body armor donated and each State
or local law enforcement agency that received the body armor.
(d) Donation by Certain Officers.--
(1) Department of justice.--In the administration of this
section with respect to the Department of Justice, in
addition to any other officer of the Department of Justice
designated by the Attorney General, the following officers
may act as the head of a Federal agency:
(A) The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
(B) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(C) The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
(D) The Director of the United States Marshals Service.
(2) Department of the treasury.--In the administration of
this section with respect to the Department of the Treasury,
in addition to any other officer of the Department of the
Treasury designated by the Secretary of the Treasury, the
following officers may act as the head of a Federal agency:
(A) The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms.
(B) The Commissioner of Customs.
(C) The Director of the United States Secret Service.
(e) No Liability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the United States shall not be liable for any harm
occurring in connection with the use or misuse of any body
armor donated under this section.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee amendment be agreed to, the bill be considered read the third
time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and
that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The bill (S. 783), as amended, was read the third time and passed.
____________________
[[Page 24279]]
CELEBRATING THE BIRTH OF JAMES MADISON AND HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
NATION
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to H. Con. Res. 396.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 396) celebrating the
birth of James Madison and his contributions to the Nation.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to
the resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (H. Con. Res. 396) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RETIRING COLLEAGUES
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes this evening to
talk about a person who is a colleague in the sense that I have worked
with him for 25 years in my office in Connecticut. He has recently
retired. I will also discuss three colleagues here in the U.S. Senate
who have announced their retirement. As we, hopefully, arrive at the
closing of this session, I want to take a couple of moments to share my
thoughts about these three colleagues. I will speak about two other
colleagues tomorrow or the next day, if I can, so as not to consume too
much time this evening because colleagues may want to be heard on other
matters.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO STANLEY ISRAELITE
Mr. DODD. First, I want to pay tribute to a man that has literally
been like a father, brother, and uncle to me, and a close confidant for
a quarter of a century. I affectionately call him ``the coach.''
Stanley Israelite has been with me in my office from the very first day
in January of 1975 when I was sworn into the House of Representatives,
until just months ago when, at age 75, he retired from the service of
the U.S. Senate and service to me as a Member of the House and the
Senate.
There are many words to describe Stanley Israelite and the many roles
in my life and the lives of countless others in Connecticut and the
country that he has served as a friend, counselor, trusted advisor, and
faithful public servant. While these words can describe what he has
been, there are really no words to describe what he has meant,
particularly to me and to literally hundreds of others who have been
blessed to know him and have been affected by the work he has performed
on their behalf. It is equally the case that there are no words to
express my true feelings of deep gratitude for Stanley's service and my
personal sadness that he is retiring from the U.S. Senate.
Mr. President, in a recent edition of the New London Day, a local
paper in Connecticut, the headline read ``Israelite Enjoys Retirement
for Day, Then Joins NCDC''--the Norwich Community Development
Corporation. That one headline fairly well sums up Stanley's remarkable
life of service. For almost 75 years, he has led a life of tireless
devotion to the things that endure in this life: faith, family,
compassion for the less fortunate, integrity, and great humility.
While many think of him as a quintessential public servant, Stanley
Israelite's roots actually lie in the world of small business. His
first occupation, after serving in the U.S. military, was helping to
run his father's jewelry store in Norwich, Connecticut. He would later
serve as an officer of the Norwich Chamber of Commerce and then became
director of it. In fact, he was director when he joined me as a
freshman member of the House. Subsequently, he was elected as a member
of the City Council in his beloved hometown of Norwich, Connecticut,
and was chosen to serve as commissioner to the Norwich Department of
Public Utilities.
In his ``spare time,'' he was corporator of the William W. Backus
Hospital in Norwich, the former Norwich Savings Society, and the
Norwich Free Academy, one of the oldest, if not the oldest, public high
schools in America.
In the 1970s, he served as head of the Norwich Community Development
Corporation. In that role, he oversaw the establishment of the Norwich
Industrial Park. I know a lot of industrial parks built today are
rather commonplace, but this was one of the first and one of the most
unique in the State of Connecticut and across the country. This
facility embodies Stanley's vision of a thriving economic community in
southeastern Connecticut, and he created it while maintaining the
wonderful topography and environmental integrity of that part of the
city of Norwich.
It represents, in many ways--in stone, metal, glass, and the
environment that surrounds it--the deep commitment of this remarkable
man to make life better for those around him. As one former State
Senator recently said of Stanley's work on the Norwich Industrial Park,
``It's high time we name the park after him.'' I second that thought.
For the past 25 years, I have had the great privilege of knowing
Stanley as a member of my staff. He served as my State director and
senior advisor for a quarter century. But what truly distinguished
Stanley was not the title that he held in my office, but his rock-solid
sense of purpose. Stanley was with me on the very first day that I was
sworn in as a new Member of Congress. Every single day, 7 days a week,
I had at least one conversation with Stanley Israelite. I never made an
important decision--very few decisions at all--without discussing them
with Stanley and getting his solid advice as to how we ought to
proceed. Early in my very first term, I remember being out with Stanley
for dinner one night. In talking about the job and how the job ought to
be done, he listened to me patiently, as he oftentimes did, go on at
some length about the work and the projects we wanted to be involved
in, the major issues affecting Electric Boat and all these important
institutions in my congressional district. After I went on for some
time, I turned to Stanley and asked him what he thought. I can almost
hear him exactly. He said, ``I am going to tell you one thing about
this job.'' He paused and he just said, ``Never forget the people.''
With those words, Stanley Israelite embarked on a 25-year career with
me, on a path and a journey that has been a joy every single day. I am
constantly reminded by Stanley and by his words and deeds that our job
is to never forget the people. For 25 years, he has been a champion of
those who too often are ignored, the underdogs, the ill, the elderly,
the frail--those who didn't have anybody to speak for them. For
Stanley, every person does count. No matter is too small for his
attention. For him, a constituent's problem became his problem. Words
like ``I can't help you,'' ``try another office,'' ``later,'' or
``no,'' simply were not in Stanley's vocabulary.
In November of 1995, U.S. News and World Report published what they
call their ``Portraits of 12 Indispensable Americans.'' I am proud to
tell you today that one of those 12 indispensable Americans was the man
I speak about this evening, Stanley Israelite.
I ask unanimous consent that that profile of Stanley Israelite
contained in the publication of U.S. News and World Report be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Senator's Aide--Hounding the Bureaucrats
(By James Popkin)
Lots of people's problems with their government aren't
ideological, they're logistical. That's why many rely on the
congressional aides like Stanley Israelite to help them fight
their battles with government agencies.
[[Page 24280]]
At 70, Stanley Israelite is fighting a crusade to prove the
cynics wrong. Since 1975, when the gravely voiced former
Brooklynite first went to work for then Rep. Christopher Dodd
(now a senator), Israelite has helped thousands of
Connecticut citizens replace lost passports, track down late
tax refunds, ship dearly departeds to grieving families
overseas and even bail the occasional misbehaving Connecticut
teenager out of Mexican jails.
All successful members of Congress have staffers like
Israelite who can goose reluctant bureaucrats into action.
Although Dodd happens to be a Democrat, effective constituent
service is a congressional specialty that cuts across
political lines. It's first and foremost a matter of good
politics: Good service results in happy voters. But what
distinguishes Israelite is his gusto for the job. And his
not-so-artful technique. ``When I call an agency because
somebody is waiting for her Social Security check or a guy is
waiting for an FHA loan and the agency gives me some song and
dance, I try to let them know I'm not gonna take any of their
crap,'' he says. ``At times, I tell them I've discussed this
problem with the senator. Sometimes, it isn't true.''
A former jewelry store owner and Chamber of Commerce honcho
from Norwich, Conn., Israelite is Dodd's pipeline to many of
the state's small-business owners. Harry Jackson, a life-long
Republican who is the City Council president in Norwich,
recalls how difficult it was to get a meeting with officials
from the Environmental Protection Agency when the city wanted
to build a new firehouse on federal land. ``Stan got us in
there after just one phone call,'' says Jackson, who
ultimately built the firehouse.
``Things happened.'' Don Daren says Israelite was a life-
saver in 1981, when a state-based paper distributor was
trying to secure a $900,000 umbrella loan from the
Connecticut Development Authority. Daren, who owns the Arrow
Paper Supply & Food Co., says it was going to take forever
for the CDA to process his loan papers so he could buy a new
warehouse. ``Stanley told them [CDA officials] my problem,
and things happened right away,'' says Daren, whose business
has grown from 36 workers then to nearly 200 today. ``He has
his own constituency. People like Stanley.''
Ideally, says veteran Hartford Courant political columnist
Don Noel, senators like Dodd would use their clout on Capitol
Hill to fix bureaucracies and make them more consumer
friendly--eliminating the need for taxpayer-financed
ombudsmen like Israelite. But since that goal seems
unattainable, Noel figures that Israelite plays a vital role.
``If you have something you need the senator to do for you,
if anyone can do it, Stanley can,'' he says.
Israelite admits that he is motivated by a desire to help
re-elect Dodd. But he adds: ``Part of what drives me is
knowing that there's someplace where somebody can go when
they are not getting anyplace.''
One of the great honors of my life has been to have Stanley by my
side during very important moments--almost every important moment in
the past 25 years. Many times when I received the applause as the
elected official, the Congressman or the Senator, I knew the person who
truly deserved the applause was Stan Israelite.
No tribute to Stanley would be complete without mentioning his
wonderful family: his beloved and recently departed wife Pauline, who
was as great and close a friend as Stanley; his son Michael and
daughter-in-law Donna; his son John; his daughter Abby and son-in-law
Bill Dolliver; his daughter Mindy and son-in-law Bill Wilkie; his
siblings; and, not least, six wonderful grandchildren. To them I extend
my heartfelt gratitude for sharing this remarkable man with me and so
many others for a quarter century.
There are few words to describe Stanley that would adequately
describe what he has done. No words will describe what he meant to
countless individuals. For me, there is sadness that he has retired
from my office in the Senate, but there is great comfort in knowing he
will continue to work on behalf of the people of our State and his
community, and will continue to be a close friend and incredibly
important part of my life. So today, there is no need for goodbyes but
only these words: Thank you, Coach.
When he departed, he said, ``I am leaving the Senate, but not Chris
Dodd.'' I can say this to Stanley: You may have left my office, but you
will never be very far away when I need you for that sound counsel and
good advice you gave me for a quarter century. I thank this wonderful
man for his service to me, to our State, and to the country.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RETIRING SENATORS
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to talk about three colleagues that
are retiring. There are five, actually, but I will get to them later. I
don't want to do it all at once tonight. I will speak about three of
them: Senators Richard Bryan, Bob Kerrey, and Frank Lautenberg. Later I
will talk about Connie Mack and Senator Pat Moynihan, who have also
made decisions to retire from the Senate. They will be casting their
last votes as Members of the Senate in the next three days. I want to
take a few minutes in these remaining hours to pay tribute to these
three individuals who will be leaving the Congress at the end of this
session.
All three of these individuals have served with great distinction in
this body. All have made a mark on our Nation for which this country
will be grateful for generations to come. All will be missed by those
of us who will remain in this body, not to mention by the people of
their respective States and people across this country.
Let me first speak, if I may, about my good friend Dick Bryan of
Nevada. Few, if any, of our colleagues have come to this institution
having already achieved as much distinction in public service as Dick
Bryan.
Long before he set foot on the floor of this U.S. Senate, he had
accomplished a great deal for the people of his beloved State of
Nevada. He is the first person in the history of that State to have
served as Attorney General, Governor, and then U.S. Senator.
Senator Bryan did not come to the Senate to sit on passed laurels and
achievements. He did what he has done in every position of public trust
he has ever held, even going back to his term as the president of his
eighth great class at Park Elementary School; he went to work on behalf
of the people he was elected to represent.
He went to work for consumers. As the former chairman of the Consumer
Affairs Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, Senator Bryan
successfully fought to have airbags installed in all automobiles sold
in the United States. Some viewed this as a highly risky cause to
champion as a politician--promoting airbags. It is thought that a
Senator should avoid at all costs having his or her name associated
with something like airbags.
But Senator Bryan was not deterred. And today, thanks to him,
hundreds of lives are saved every year by a feature that is now
standard issue in American automobiles. Every day, when tens of
millions of Americans drive to work, school, or the store, they can
thank Dick Bryan for making sure that their trip will be a safer one
than it otherwise would have been.
Senator Bryan also worked with a large coalition of children's
advocates to enact new protections for Internet privacy. He led the
fight to strengthen the laws governing the credit reporting industry,
which is so crucial to the ability of virtually every American to
obtain a home, a car, and a loan for any other modern necessity. And he
took the lead in crafting legislation to reduce telemarketing fraud,
which preys on so many elderly and other vulnerable citizens.
Aside from his record as a consumer advocate, Dick Bryan is perhaps
best known for his work on behalf of his state and its residents. We
are all familiar with the tenacity with which he and his colleague
Senator Reid have worked to prevent the Nevada Test Site at Yucca
Mountain from being designated as an interim storage facility for the
nation's nuclear waste. I have myself known the unique pleasure of
being visited by Senator Bryan and Senator Reid about this matter.
I have also admired Senator Bryan's efforts to protect Nevada's
lands, particularly in the southern part of the state. Because of his
efforts, all proceeds from the sale of lands in that part of the state
must be spent within the state. That's a plan that no other state
enjoys, and it is a tribute to Dick Bryan's legislative skills.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the important work that
Senator Bryan has performed as a member of the Senate Ethics Committee
and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
These are important and sensitive committees on which to serve. It is
a
[[Page 24281]]
reflection of the high esteem in which he is held by his colleagues
that he served on these committees--and did so, I might add, with
discretion and with distinction.
In sum, Mr. President, Richard Bryan has spent his two terms in the
Senate working hard and working effectively--for consumers, for his
constituents, for a stronger intelligence-gathering function by the
United States, and for a stronger United States Senate. He has been an
outstanding leader and a good friend. We wish him, his wife Bonnie,
their children and grandchildren well as they begin the next phase of
their life together.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR KERREY
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in a few short days, Senator Kerrey will
also be among our five colleagues bringing to an end their tenure in
here in the Senate. I think all of us understand his decision and
respect it, but I think we regret it.
Like Senator Bryan, Senator Kerrey is a former governor of his state.
Like him, he has served in the Senate for two terms. And like Senator
Bryan, Senator Kerrey has left a lasting mark on this institution, on
his state, and on our country.
The outlines of this remarkable man's resume are known to many of us.
Bob Kerrey served with distinction in the Navy, and today is the only
Member of Congress to have earned a Medal of Honor for his heroism in
combat duty during the Vietnam war. He became a successful businessman
in Omaha.
He was elected Governor of Nebraska in 1982. It was a time when few
Democrats were running for--much less winning--state-wide offices,
particularly in his part of the country. And it was a time when our
entire country was mired in a recession, particularly in Nebraska and
other farm states, which were suffering through the worst economic
conditions since the Great Depression.
As Governor, Bob Kerrey met the challenge of eliminating a serious
budget deficit. In fact, he balanced his state's budget every year,
helping to turn that deficit into a surplus. He also initiated
innovative reforms in welfare, education, job training, and
environmental protection.
In the opinion of his constituents and many others, Bob Kerrey was
proving himself to be an outstanding public servant. He established
himself as someone willing to make tough decisions.
He showed that he has an ability to see ``around the corner'' and
think ``outside the box'' by initiating thoughtful, creative, and
effective policies for the benefit of the people of his beloved state
of Nebraska.
But it can be said that public service has always needed Bob Kerrey
more than Bob Kerrey has needed public service. He has never been one
to assume that his gifts of leadership and his curiosity about life's
meaning and purpose can only be satisfied by holding elected office.
Despite his impressive record as Governor, and despite his strong
public approval ratings, he declined to run for re-election and took
leave of public life. He headed to southern California, where he taught
a course on the Vietnam war to college students--readily admitting that
one of the chief reasons for accepting that position was to wait out
the worst months of the Nebraska winter on a warm beach.
Two years later, the people of Nebraska sent him to the United States
Senate--to the good fortune not only of his constituents, but of his
new colleagues and the American people. As a member of the Finance
Committee, Agriculture Committee, Appropriations Committee, and Select
Committee on Intelligence, he worked diligently to strengthen family
farmers, small businesses, and our nation's vital intelligence-
gathering agencies.
He also dedicated himself to perhaps the most important and
intractable domestic policy question facing our nation: entitlement
reform. He chaired the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax
Reform--which has produced what many regard as the definitive analysis
of the entitlement system. He served on the National Commission on the
Future of Medicare, proposing thoughtful ideas for health care reform.
He also co-chaired the National Commission on Restructuring the
Internal Revenue Service, where he developed some of the most sweeping
reforms of IRS operations ever instituted.
Not all of Senator Kerrey's ideas on entitlement reform have been
adopted or even embraced. But each and every one of them has merited
the careful consideration of our colleagues and of the country as a
whole.
That in itself is the great tribute to the work of this fine Senator.
Like a sentry on the watch, his words of caution and warning will
reverberate through the Halls of Congress long after his departure. He
has persistently shone a light on the looming and inescapable
demographic fact that retirees are growing in numbers that will soon
overwhelm our present ability to sustain them under the umbrella of
Social Security and Medicare.
He has done so not with the shrill self-righteousness that some bring
to a cause about which they feel great passion. He has done so with
conviction, humor, and humility. For his words of warning, and for the
way in which he has uttered them, this body and our nation owe him a
debt of gratitude.
Now he prepares to move on to academia, where he will become
president of New School University in New York City. I come from a
family of educators, and when Bob told me of his decision, my first
reaction was: are you sure that you want to do this? If you think
sitting through a markup or a hearing can be tedious, just wait until
that first faculty meeting. And wait until you get a visit from an
orange-haired undergraduate seeking special credit for his graffiti
art. That will put your patience and problem-solving skills to the
test.
But Bob will not be deterred. And I suspect that, as he has done
throughout his career, he will shape his office and place more than it
will shape him. He will bring his rare gifts of leadership to the
higher education students and faculty with whom he will come in touch.
I know I am joined by all of my colleagues in wishing him well, and I
look forward to many more years of his friendship and his leadership. I
don't believe America is through with Bob Kerrey yet.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to another of our
retiring colleagues, Senator Lautenberg.
Frank Lautenberg is a remarkable man in a great many respects. He has
lived the American dream, and devoted his life in public service to
making the American dream alive and available to each and every
American--regardless of race, creed, or station in life. He has made a
lasting and indelible mark on the laws of our nation--and in the
process made our nation a better place for all.
The son of immigrants, Frank was born in Paterson, New Jersey. His
family moved some twelve times during his boyhood in search of work.
His father spent most of his time laboring in the silk mills of
Paterson.
Frank served in World War Two in the European theater. He attended
Columbia University on the G.I. bill. After graduating from Columbia,
he and two boyhood friends began a business. As chairman and CEO, it
grew to become one of the largest computer services companies in the
world.
Frank became a very successful man financially. The time came when he
decided to give something back to the country that had given him and
his family so very much. For the past 18 years in the Senate, that is
exactly what Frank Lautenberg has done.
Frank is one of those rare people who rises to a high place in life
and never forgets where he came from. He did not pull up the ladder of
opportunity once he had climbed it. He fought to keep it in place and
make it stronger for those who came after him. He has always, I think,
seen a bit of himself in the faces of the children and working people
whom he has served.
[[Page 24282]]
It so happens that one of America's finest poets, William Carlos
Williams also called Paterson, NJ his home. Williams was a doctor. He
made house calls, carrying his black medical bag up and down the stairs
of Paterson's tenements. He wrote poems at night, or scratched them out
during brief intervals of his busy days tending to the sick and scared.
He wrote once that there are ``No ideas but in things''. Frank
Lautenberg must intuitively graps the meaning of Williams poetry. For
him, the noble ideas that have motivated his public service have taken
shape in the things he had done--in the resources he has brought home
to the people of his state, and in the laws he has written on behalf of
all Americans.
In his eighteen years as a United States Senator, Frank Lautenberg
has amassed a remarkable record of public achievement. There are few
areas of environmental, transportation, budget, and anti-crime policy
that have not benefited from his careful mind and strong hand.
On the environment, Frank helped write landmark legislation to
cleanse our air, provide safer drinking water, and clean up more toxic
waste sites. He authored measure to make America's beaches cleaner, and
to ban the ocean dumping of sewage.
He has shaped our nation's transportation policy. Frank understands
as few others do that our nation can only grow and prosper to the
degree that it is able to move people, goods, and services safely and
efficiently. Along with Senator Moynihan and others, his leadership has
been instrumental in ensuring some modicum of balance in our funding
for mass transit as opposed to roads and highways. He has been a leader
in the ongoing effort to support Amtrak and the important cause of
commuter and intercity passenger rail service, which can do so much to
reduce traffic congestion and keep our air clean.
And no one has done more to promote transportation safety, on the
road as well as in the air. Frank Lautenberg authored the law to
establish 21 as the legal drinking age, and to ban smoking on
airplanes. And he is responsible more than anyone else for the landmark
provision in this year's transportation appropriations bill lowering
the legal standard for intoxication to .08 percent blood alcohol
content. The drinking age law alone as saved an estimated 12,000 lives
since its enactment in 1984. It's estimated that his ``.08'' measure
will save an additional 600 lives each year in this country.
Frank Lautenberg also understood that we must do more to protect law-
abiding citizens from the scourge of gun violence. He authored the bill
to close the gun-show loophole. He has fought for child-proof handguns.
And his support for measures like the Brady bill was instrumental in
bringing about a nationwide reduction in gun violence over the past 7
years.
Lastly, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, Frank has played a
valuable role in bringing about an end to budget deficits and putting
our nation on the path to paying off our national debt. He has also
worked to strengthen the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.
I said a while ago that Frank Lautenberg proved to be a very
successful businessman. He accumulated great financial wealth. No one
would have faulted him if he just retired, having made that achievement
and contribution for the private sector.
I think all of us, regardless of party and political persuasion,
admire people who want to give something back and who are willing to
jump into this arena of public life, running the risks that we all do
when we place our name on ballots all cross this country. The fact that
Frank Lautenberg decided at the end of his private life to become a
public citizen and make a significant contribution to his country
stands as a wonderful model for others who have done well to follow and
when they want to give something back.
Not everyone runs for public office, nor should they, but there are
ways in which people can make contributions every day to improve the
quality of life for people. Frank Lautenberg is a living embodiment of
that concept and that principle.
The colleagues I have talked about, the wonderful colleagues who have
served so admirably and so well, Dick Bryan, Bob Kerrey, Frank
Lautenberg, and my friend, Stan Israelite, are examples of public
servants who I will miss terribly every day. These are good Americans
who have made a difference in the lives of all of us as citizens in
this country.
I will find time to talk about my good friends, Connie Mack and Pat
Moynihan, but I see my colleagues on the floor. I thank them for their
indulgence. I talked a little longer than I anticipated. I thank the
Senators for their patience.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Oklahoma.
____________________
CONSULTING ON U.S.S. ``COLE'' ACTION
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, many on the Senate Armed Services
Committee have been quite distressed over some of the uncertainties,
some of the things that happened in conjunction with the tragedy of the
U.S.S. Cole. Even though it is a delicate thing to talk about, there
are people still around who believe that the President took some
actions, such as sending the cruise missiles into Afghanistan and the
cruise missiles into Sudan, without consultation with the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, without consultation with the Intelligence Committee, the
Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Armed Services Committee,
something that was done and nobody knew it was going to happen. There
are a lot of people who believe that might have been politically
motivated.
I think it is very appropriate tonight to urge the President that if
something should happen that we would have to take some kind of action
in the next few days, in that there are only 13 days until a national
election, make sure there are no suspicions out there. I want to get on
record urging the President to work closely on any proposed action that
could take place as a result of the U.S.S. Cole tragedy, to work
closely on the matter, in full consultation with all members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the top service commanders in chief, as
well as the members of both the Senate Armed Services Committee, the
House Armed Services Committee, and the Intelligence Committees. By
doing this, we could preclude any types of suspicions, allowing us to
participate in what would have to be a major decision.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
____________________
FISCAL DISCIPLINE
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the main reasons I ran for the
Senate was to bring fiscal discipline to Washington. As the 106th
Congress winds down this week, I look back with mixed feelings at the
actions that have been taken over the last 2 years toward bringing our
financial house in order. While for the first time we are not spending
the Social Security surplus or the Medicare Part A surplus, I believe
we could have done a much better job in reining in Federal spending.
Indeed, one fact that does not seem to draw too much attention is the
fact that Washington increased overall nondefense domestic
discretionary spending in fiscal year 2000 to $328 billion. That is a
9.3-percent boost over the previous fiscal year, and the largest
single-year increase in nondefense discretionary spending since 1980.
And I fear we will have another big increase in fiscal year 2001.
However, there is actually some good news to celebrate since the
beginning of this Congress. As my colleagues may recall, President
Clinton said in his State of the Union Address in 1999 that he wanted
to save 62 percent of the surplus and spend the other 38 percent. Well,
at the time, the entire surplus was the Social Security surplus.
It was Members on this side of the aisle in both the House and the
Senate who exposed the President's plan as just another spending
gimmick. We were also the ones who got busy advocating and fighting for
a lockbox for
[[Page 24283]]
Social Security and Medicare. For all intents and purposes, we were
successful in fiscal year 2000 in doing so, and we will do the same in
fiscal year 2001.
Now the Vice President is out there on the campaign trail bending the
truth and taking credit for lockboxing Social Security and Medicare.
Everyone should be aware that it was the Clinton-Gore administration
that sent a veto threat to the Senate regarding the Social Security
lockbox amendment that the Senate considered in April of 1999.
Let me recite the direct quote from the veto threat:
If the Abraham-Domenici amendment or similar legislation is
passed by the Congress, the President's senior advisors will
recommend to the President that he will veto this bill.
I suspect that senior advisors would include the Vice President.
Although Congress has agreed by consensus not to use the Social
Security and Medicare surplus for more spending, Congress still has not
been able to pass lockbox legislation. I am fearful, if things get
tight in the future and we have a blip in the economy, Congress will
revert to its old ways. So I am hoping next year that on a bipartisan
basis we can pass lockbox legislation for the Social Security and
Medicare surplus.
Probably the best news from fiscal year 2000 is that despite all the
supplemental spending we did this past summer, we still achieved an $87
billion on-budget surplus in fiscal year 2000. That is a lot more than
the $1 billion on-budget surplus we had at the end of fiscal year 1999.
Without question, though, the American people are responsible for this
surplus, and their success continues to generate better than expected
revenues. However, Congress would have spent considerably more money,
had it not been for a handful of us in the House and Senate who were
willing to take the heat for condemning massive spending increases and
budget gimmickry. Because this $87 billion on-budget surplus had not
been spent, and not used for tax cuts, it is going to go to reduce the
national debt.
In my view and in the view of many experts, using our on-budget
surplus to pay down the national debt is the best way to ensure fiscal
discipline and continue our economic prosperity. We need to continue
that economic prosperity if we are going to deal with the problems of
Social Security and Medicare in the future. We cannot be lulled by the
booming economy and the fact that we have been able to utilize the $87
billion fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus for debt reduction.
In addition, the way things are going right now in Washington, we may
not even see a fiscal year 2001 on-budget surplus. That is because the
projected $102 billion surplus is evaporating very quickly. With all
the years of experience that I have had in public service, I have to
say that I have never seen anything more fiscally irresponsible than
the spending spree I have seen occur in Washington this year--but, in
particular, these past weeks. The lack of willingness on the part of
Congress to make the hard choices and restrain the urge to bring home
the bacon is blowing a hole in the fiscal year 2001 surplus and a
gigantic hole in the projected 10-year budget surplus.
I think back to 1997 when Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act,
helping to put an end to the era of annual deficits. The Balanced
Budget Act set spending targets for each fiscal year and was meant to
teach Congress to prioritize its spending choices. Under the Balanced
Budget Act, if Congress wanted to spend money, it had to find an offset
to cover the additional spending. Fair enough, and it worked. It helped
to balance the budget.
Today, with the surplus we have achieved and the surplus that
everyone thinks we are going to have in the future, the discipline is
gone. It is just an out-of-control feeding frenzy. Add the fact that
the normal legislative process has gone out the window, and we are in a
free fall. Right now, only a handful of individuals--the President and
my colleagues who are on the Appropriations Committee--are making the
decisions that will impact how much the Federal Government spends for
the coming fiscal year. Once the decisions are made, they are packaged
together, sent to the floor of the Senate and the House, and voted on:
No debate, no amendments. In some circumstances, Members have not even
seen the bills they are voting on.
Basically, it is a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. Since these bills
contain the bacon, most Members go along and simply vote for them. For
those Members who do, they will run home, bragging about how they got
this or that for their districts or for their State, failing to
understand that their constituents know there is no such thing as a
free lunch. Make no mistake, the American people will fast appreciate
the spending spectacle that is going on here in Congress. If you think
they were mad in 1998 when Congress went on a similar spree--and I
remember that because I was campaigning for the Senate in 1998 and I
caught all kinds of flak from people because of what Congress had
done--wait until they get wind of what is happening right now. And they
will. We will definitely feel their wrath. But more important, we will
experience their disappointment in letting them down.
This Senator is not going along with the ``pork-a-thon.'' I have
voted against most of the appropriations bills that have come before
the Senate, not because I am opposed to the Federal Government spending
money on what is necessary, but because Congress has been unwilling to
prioritize spending and unwilling to make the hard choices within the
framework of the 2001 budget resolution.
In case my colleagues are not aware, let me explain briefly how big
the increases are in the various appropriations bills.
The fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriations bill spends $18.8
billion, a 26-percent increase over fiscal year 2000; the
Transportation appropriations bill, spends $16.8 billion in
discretionary spending, a 23-percent increase over fiscal year 2000;
the VA-HUD appropriations bill spends $82.5 billion, a 14-percent
increase; the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill spends $15.6 billion,
a 13-percent increase; the Energy and Water appropriations bill spends
$24 billion, a 12-percent increase; the Agriculture appropriations bill
spends $15 billion in discretionary spending, an 8-percent increase,
and that is not including agriculture emergency spending.
For fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2001, nearly $23.25 billion in
agriculture emergency spending has been provided by the Government--
$23.25 billion in emergency spending. That is more than double the
approximately $10.75 billion in emergency spending for the entire 10
year period before. In other words, in 3 years, we have doubled the
emergency spending for agriculture over what we spent in the 10
previous fiscal years.
In April, the Senate spent over 50 hours debating and amending a
budget resolution for fiscal year 2001. An agreement was reached on an
overall spending amount of $600.3 billion in budget authority. I worked
with Senators like Phil Gramm to add new points of order to bring more
discipline to the process. But in light of recent events, I wonder what
was the 50 hours of effort over? I find myself asking, Why should we
have a budget resolution if we are just going to ignore it? Why even
have a budget process if we are just going to operate as if the rules
did not exist? Congress and the White House are spending money like
drunken sailors, and we need to get on the wagon before it is too late
and we spend it all.
CBO's projections over the next 10 years estimate that Federal
spending will grow with the rate of inflation, but this does not
reflect reality. In fiscal year 2000 alone, we increased discretionary
spending by 8.3 percent, a rate much higher than the actual inflation
rate. When you compare that with the spending increases of 14 percent,
23 percent, and 26 percent in just fiscal year 2001 alone, then you can
see the kind of trouble we are getting ourselves into.
Add up all the numbers, include the appropriations bills that have
passed and those that are anticipated to pass; include as much as $265
billion worth of tax reductions for the next 10 years;
[[Page 24284]]
and, of course, we cannot forget there are going to be additional
interest costs that will be generated by Congress simultaneously
increasing spending and lowering taxes. Just add it all up. When you
do, you will find that Congress and the Clinton-Gore administration
will have reduced the 10-year projected budget surplus by more than
$600 billion. In a worst case scenario, the Concord Coalition estimates
that Congress' accelerated pace of spending could wipe out up to $1.46
trillion of the non-Social Security surplus projected for the next 10
years--over a trillion dollars is what they project. What a terrible
thing we are doing to the next administration and to the citizens of
this Nation.
After the 106th Congress' drunken spending spree is over, the
American people and the future President will be waking up to a
tremendous hangover.
____________________
FISHERMEN'S PROTECTIVE ACT OF 1967 AMENDMENTS
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the
Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (H.R.
1651).
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 1651) entitled ``An Act to amend the
Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to extend the period
during which reimbursement may be provided to owners of
United States fishing vessels for costs incurred when such a
vessel is seized and detained by a foreign country, and for
other purposes'', with the following amendment:
Page 1, line 4, strike ``SEC. 401. USE OF AIRCRAFT
PROHIBITED.'' and all that follows through ``SEC. 402.'' and
insert ``SEC. 401.''.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent the Senate agree to the
amendment of the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2000
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 9:30
a.m. on Thursday, October 26. I further ask consent that on Thursday,
immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be
approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their
use later in the day, and it will be the intention of the leader to
begin consideration of the Older Americans Act, hopefully under an
agreement. I further ask consent that at 11 o'clock there be a period
of morning business until 12 noon, with the time equally divided
between Senators Bryan and Domenici, and that Senator Bryan be in
control of the first half of that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. VOINOVICH. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will
hopefully begin debate on the Older Americans Act at 9:30 a.m. At 11
a.m., the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour and
then resume consideration of the Older Americans Act. The House is
expected to consider the conference report to accompany the District of
Columbia appropriations bill, which also contains the Commerce-Justice-
State appropriations language, the Labor-HHS appropriations conference
report, and the tax bill during tomorrow morning's session. It is hoped
that the Senate can begin consideration of those bills as they are
received from the House. Therefore, votes are expected in the afternoon
on these bills, as well as a vote on a continuing resolution.
____________________
ORDER FOR RECESS
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of
Senator Reid from Nevada, who has been very patient. I thank Senator
Reid and the Chair very much for their patience this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are to begin at
9:30 tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and
the Pledge of Allegiance, the Senator from Nevada be recognized for a
half-hour tomorrow morning as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I withdraw the request, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator from Ohio has completed
his work for the night.
The Senator from Ohio has finished for tonight?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
____________________
ISSUES BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND GOVERNOR BUSH
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have an interesting number of issues
before this body. We have talked on various occasions, not the least of
which has been today, about what we have not done: A real Patients'
Bill of Rights; a prescription drug coverage through Medicare; a
minimum wage increase; tax-deductibility for college-level education,
including lifelong learning; education funds to modernize our schools,
to have afterschool programs, to have more teachers; commonsense gun
safety legislation; long-term tax credits for families caring for
elderly parents; and affordable housing. These issues--any one of
them--could have been completed with the intercession of the Governor
of Texas who is running for President.
The campaign, that will be completed in 12 or 13 days, is a campaign
of ideas. What I would like to do tonight is spread across the Record
of this Senate some of the ideas of George W. Bush, the Governor of the
State of Texas. I say this because I think we should understand there
are a number of policies that are being advocated by the Vice President
and by the Governor of Texas.
So what I want to do today is quote verbatim, statements that have
been made by George W. Bush. I will not be able to complete all of his
statements tonight, but I am going to spend some time reading direct
quotes of George W. Bush. Maybe I will return tomorrow or the day after
to complete the statements of the Governor of the State of Texas.
The first quote comes from October 23, 2000. That was last Monday.
Here is the direct quote:
I don't want nations feeling like that they can bully
ourselves and our allies. I want to have a ballistic defense
system so that we can make the world more peaceful, and at
the same time I want to reduce our own nuclear capacities to
the level commiserate with keeping the peace.
October 18, 2000, another direct quote:
Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take
dream.
He also said, on that same occasion, in LaCrosse, WI:
If I'm the president, we're going to have emergency-room
care, we're going to have gag orders.
He also said, and I quote:
Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used
to know it.
Another direct quote:
It's one thing about insurance, that's a Washington term.
Direct quote:
I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can
have a gun.
This is the Governor of the State of Texas, the man running for
President of the United States, who has said these things.
The next direct quote:
Mr. Vice President, in all due respect, it is--I'm not sure
80 percent of the people get the death tax. I know this: 100
percent will get it if I'm the president.
Next direct quote:
Quotas are bad for America. It's not the way America is all
about.
[[Page 24285]]
Direct quote.
October 18, in St. Louis, the same day that he said, ``Families is
where our nation finds hopes, where wings take dream,'' he said:
If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm
for, then I'm for it.
In Greensboro, NC, on October 10 of this year, he said:
Our priorities is our faith.
October 11 of the year 2000:
I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial
profiling, which is illiterate children.
The direct quote from Gov. George W. Bush: ``I mean, there needs to
be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate
children.''
Greensboro, NC, the day before--that is, October 10--when he was
commenting on the Vice President's tax plan:
It's going to require numerous IRA agents.
The Governor of the State of Texas said, on October 4, in
Reynoldsburg, OH:
I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot
easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question.
This was in response to a question about whether he wished he could
take back any of his answers in the first debate. The direct quote is:
``I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to
answer questions. I can't answer your question.''
I do not think that takes any discussion to figure out what he just
said, because I do not think he knows what he just said.
In Boston, on October 3 of the year 2000, he said:
I would have my secretary of treasury be in touch with the
financial centers, not only here but at home.
Saginaw, MI, September 29, 2000:
I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.
Quote: ``I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.''
Redwood, CA, September 27, 2000:
I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy.
Again, these are direct quotes from the Governor of the State of
Texas, the man who has been nominated to be President of the United
States.
Los Angeles, September 27:
One of the common denominators I have found is that
expectations rise above that which is expected.
Beaverton, OR, September 25, this year:
It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil.
More and more of our imports come from overseas.
Direct quote, MSNBC, September 20, 2000:
Well, that's going to be up to the pundits and the people
to make up their mind. I'll tell you what is a president for
him, for example, talking about my record in the state of
Texas. I mean, he's willing to say anything in order to
convince people that I haven't had a good record in Texas.
September 9, on the Oprah show:
I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans.
Interview with Paula Zahn, September 18, 2000:
A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of
an economic illness.
I have read these over several times. I still am stunned by what has
been said by the man running for President of the United States.
Orange, CA, September 15, 2000:
The woman who knew that I had dyslexia--I never interviewed
her.
Westminster, CA, September 13:
The best way to relieve families from time is to let them
keep some of their own money.
The same interview:
They have miscalculated me as a leader.
Orlando, FL, September 12, 2000:
I don't think we need to be subliminable about the
differences between our views on prescription drugs.
This is a campaign of ideas, Mr. President, a discussion of policies,
a discussion of having a vision of what this country needs, someone who
can discuss them in a logical manner.
Pittsburgh, PA, September 8:
This is what I'm good at. I like meeting people, my fellow
citizens, I like interfacing with them.
Westland, MI, September 8:
That's Washington. That's the place where you find people
getting ready to jump out of the foxholes before the first
shot is fired.
Detroit, September 7, 2000:
Listen, Al Gore is a very tough opponent. He is the
incumbent. He represents the incumbency. And a challenger is
somebody who generally comes from the pack and wins, if
you're going to win. And that's where I'm coming from.
Houston, TX, September 6:
We'll let our friends be the peacemakers and the great
country called America will be the pacemakers.
Scranton, PA, September 6:
We don't believe in planners and deciders making decisions
on behalf of Americans.
Allentown, PA, September 5:
I regret that a private comment I made to the vice
presidential candidate made it through the public airways.
New York Times, September 2:
The point is, this is a way to help inoculate me about what
has come and is coming.
CNN online chat:
As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our
public schools, and I have met these standards.
Same interview:
Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and
don't do it, that is trustworthiness.
Des Moines, IA, August 21:
I don't know whether I'm going to win or not. I think I am.
I do know I am ready for the job. And, if not, that's just
the way it goes.
Same, Des Moines, IA:
This campaign not only hears the voices of entrepreneurs
and the farmers and the entrepreneurs, we hear the voices of
those struggling to get ahead.
Des Moines, IA, August 21:
We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation
hostile or hold our allies hostile.
I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is
something who brings people together.
That is from Bartlett, TN, August 18.
August 11, Associated Press:
I think he needs to stand up and say if he thought the
president were wrong on policy and issues, he ought to say
where.
Salinas, CA, August 10:
I want you to know that farmers are not going to be
secondary thoughts to a Bush administration. They will be in
the forethought of our thinking.
Today Show interview, August 1:
And if he continues that, I'm going to tell the nation what
I think about him as a human being and as a person.
Washington Post, July 15. This was a comment to New Jersey's
Secretary of State, the Honorable DeForest Soaries, Jr.:
You might want to comment on that, Honorable.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2000:
This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a
lot. I understand the emotionality of death penalty cases.
Cleveland, OH, June 29:
States should have the right to enact reasonable laws and
restrictions particularly to end the inhuman practice of
ending a life that otherwise could live.
This is another Cleveland quote from a different time, July 1:
Unfairly but truthfully, our party has been tagged as being
against things. Anti-immigrant, for example. And we're not a
party of anti-immigrants. Quite the opposite. We're a party
that welcomes people.
Wayne, MI, June 28:
The fundamental question is, Will I be a successful
president when it comes to foreign policy? I will be, but
until I'm the president, it's going to be hard for me to
verify that I think I'll be more effective.
NPR radio, June 16:
The only things that I can tell you is that every case I
have reviewed I have been comfortable with the innocence or
guilt of the person that I've looked at. I do not believe
we've put a guilty . . . I mean innocent person to death in
the State of Texas.
Hardball, MSNBC, discussion on abortion, May 31 of this year:
I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've read--I
understand reality. If you're asking me as the president,
would I understand reality, I do.
June 9, 2000, Wilton, CT:
There's not going to be enough people in the system to take
advantage of people like me.
April 3, U.S. News and World Report:
I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to
handle the job is underestimating.
This is interesting. This is also on Hardball. Governor Bush:
[[Page 24286]]
First of all, Cinco de Mayo is not the independence day.
That's dieciseis de Septiembre, and . . .
Chris Matthews says:
What's that in English?
Governor Bush:
Fifteenth of September.
Mr. President, I took 2 years of high school Spanish, and I know that
is not September 15.
From Albuquerque, NM, on May 31:
Actually, I--this may sound a little West Texan to you, but
I like it. What I'm talking about--when I'm talking about
myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are
talking about me.
Again, he said:
Actually I--this may sound a little west Texan to you, but
I like it. What I'm talking about--when I'm talking about
myself, and when he's talking about myself, all of us are
talking about me.
Here is another direct quote from the Albuquerque on May 31:
This is a world that is much more uncertain than the past.
In the past, we were certain, we were certain it was us
versus the Russians in the past. We were certain, and
therefore we had huge nuclear arsenals aimed at each other to
keep the peace. That's what we were certain of. You see, even
though it's an uncertain world, we're certain of some things.
We're certain that even though the ``evil empire'' may have
passed, evil still remains. We're certain there are people
that can't stand what America stands for. We're certain there
are madmen in this world, and there's terror and there's
missiles, and I'm certain of this, too: I'm certain to
maintain the peace, we better have a military of high morale,
and I'm certain that under this administration, morale in the
military is dangerously low.
He was talking with Paula Zahn on May 18 about Rudy Giuliani, the
mayor of New York City:
He has certainly earned a reputation as a fantastic mayor,
because the results speak for themselves. I mean, New York is
a safer place for him to be.
This was in the New York Times on March 4, 2000:
The fact that he relies on facts--says things that are not
factual--are going to undermine his campaign.
On his meeting with John McCain, in the Dallas Morning News on May
10, 2000, he said:
I think we agree, the past is over.
This is from Reuters, May 5, 2000:
It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it.
Here is an interview Governor Bush did with Jim Lehrer on The
NewsHour, on April 27, 2000:
Governor Bush: Because the picture on the newspaper. It
just seems so un-American to me, the picture of the guy
storming the house with a scared little boy there. I talked
to my little brother, Jeb--I haven't told this to many
people. But he's the Governor of--I shouldn't call him my
little brother--my brother, Jeb, the great Governor of Texas.
Jim Lehrer: Florida.
Governor Bush: Florida. The State of Florida.
On April 26, 2000, he said:
I hope we get to the bottom of the answer. It's what I'm
interested to know.
On Meet The Press on April 15, he said:
Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is
sometimes until we get an objective analysis.
On April 6, 2000, the Associated Press reports this quote:
You subscribe politics to it. I subscribe freedom to it.
That was a question about whether he and Al Gore were making the
Elian Gonzalez case a political issue.
This appeared in The Los Angeles Times on April 8, 2000:
I was raised in the West. The west of Texas. It's pretty
close to California. In more ways than Washington, DC, is
close to California.
On March 28, 2000 in Reston, Virginia, he said:
Reading is the basics for all learning.
This was at Fritsche Middle School in Milwaukee on March 30, 2000:
We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the
obligations, their obligations as teachers. We want them to
know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make
sure there's not this kind of Federal--Federal cufflink.
Mr. President, I will make my final quote for tonight. We have
several pages more we will do at a subsequent time.
In the Washington Post of March 24, 2000, this is his quote:
Other Republican candidates may retort to personal attacks
and negative ads.
Mr. President, I read these direct quotes. It would have been very
easy to editorialize on every one of them. I chose not to do that. I
chose, though, to spread across the record of this Senate statements
made by Governor George W. Bush which should lead some to believe that
if this man is going to be heavily involved in policy not only of this
Nation, but this world, that they should be aware of some of the
statements he has made. We want this to be a Government where people
are clear on the issues, understand the issues. We have difficult, very
complex problems not only domestically, but internationally. I think
these quotes speak for themselves.
Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from Iowa is here
and wishes to speak.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator to yield to me for a second.
Mr. REID. How much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator was given as much time as he may
consume.
Mr. REID. I will yield the Senator some time.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for mentioning some of those quotes.
I didn't hear them all because I was on my way to the floor from my
office.
Mr. REID. I was only able to get to a few of them. I only spent about
40 minutes talking on the direct quotes from the Governor of Texas.
There will be more.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada can only yield for a
question at this point in time.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding he was asking me a question.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I appreciate the Senator's comments and reading
those quotes. I wonder, did the Senator listen to the third and final
debate?
Mr. REID. I didn't miss a single word of that debate.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to ask the Senator, did he hear the quote by about
Governor Bush--there was a question asked about agriculture. Vice
President Gore answered the question and it came to Governor Bush. He
started talking about using food as a weapon. He made this quote--he
said:
We have got to stop using food. It hurts the farmers.
Does the Senator remember that quote?
Mr. REID. I listened with amazement. In responding to my friend from
Iowa, following the second debate, the Vice President, during that
debate, said that there was a young lady in Florida that wasn't able to
get a desk. The Republican spin doctors came back the next day and said
that wasn't true, she was only out of a desk for a day. In fact, she
missed 7 days because of not having room in that classroom, for
whatever reason. I was so amazed that the press picked up on what the
Vice President said, which to me indicated that was just one of the
minor problems that we have in education.
I heard a day or two after the debate from Governor Bush. He said
this. I heard it. He said: Well, I did fine in the debate because the
expectations were so low of me that all I had to do was show up and say
my name is George W. Bush and win the debate.
I say to my friend from Iowa, that is about how the American press
has treated it. All he had to do was show up and tell his name, because
if they looked into some of his statements--for one, the statement that
the Senator from Iowa asked me about regarding food--it seems to me for
our farmers who are suffering so much in our country today that is
something the press might want to pick up on.
Does the Senator have another question?
Mr. HARKIN. No.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the right to do
that. Under the previous order, the Senate will recess until tomorrow
morning at 9:30.
Mr. REID. I did not hear the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Nevada was allowed time to speak, and after he spoke, the Senate is to
be in recess until tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.
[[Page 24287]]
Mr. REID. I want to complete my statement. I will finish that in a
hurry. This is a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair: We are going to
come in at 9:30 tomorrow morning?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. And we are to pick up the older Americans legislation.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I asked for 15 minutes at the end of the
time. For some reason it got mixed up and I was not included on the
list. It is my intention to ask unanimous consent that I be recognized
to speak for 15 minutes before the Senate goes out on recess.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
____________________
SHORTAGE OF AIRLINE PASSENGER SPACE
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one of the most serious issues facing our
national air transport system is the shortage of space--both in the air
and on the ground at key airports. We've seen this most clearly this
past summer in the backups at Chicago O'Hare and in much of the
airspace in the Northeast.
Americans have developed a tremendous appetite for air travel for
both leisure and business needs. In the last few years, with our
economy so strong, the result has been an increasing number of packed
planes all year round, especially during the peak summer travel season.
But for many Americans trying to enjoy some vacation time, this
summer was a season of discontent filled with bad weather, aging air
traffic control systems and airline-employee difficulties. Countless
Americans spent hours sitting on the tarmac at O'Hare waiting to take
off, or sitting in the airport lounge, waiting for their planes to
arrive. Thousands of Americans found themselves delayed, stranded and
disappointed. A once-reliable system has become increasingly
unreliable.
Some of these events are unavoidable. Clearly, there are times when
bad weather requires us to delay or cancel flights. But when an airport
is near capacity, even the tiniest alteration in landing and takeoff
timing can quickly turn into considerable delays.
We've been seeing the warning signs for years. The National Civil
Aviation Review Commission, chaired by the current Secretary of
Commerce, Norm Mineta, warned us three years ago about our looming air
travel crisis.
In fact, the very first sentence of the Commission's report reads as
follows:
Without prompt action, the United States' aviation system
is headed toward gridlock shortly after the turn of the
century. If this gridlock is allowed to happen, it will
result in a deterioration of aviation safety, harm the
efficiency and growth of our domestic economy, and hurt our
position in the global marketplace.
Mr. President, the future is now. As we have turned the corner into
the 21st Century, the predicted air traffic control crisis is clearly
upon us.
I believe FAA Administrator Jane Garvey has done a terrific job.
However, there are a number of steps that the FAA and the airlines must
take--in both the short and long run--to modernize the air traffic
control system and reduce congestion, particularly as it affects the
heavily traveled northeast air corridors between New York, Boston, and
Washington, DC, and Chicago and other key Midwestern airports.
In the short term, the FAA needs to make better use of existing
capacity. This means better communication between the FAA and airlines
when bad weather ties up key airports and decisions must be made about
reducing or rerouting air traffic. Right now, airlines have no
coordinated plans on bad weather days, and they're left to guess
whether their competitors will cancel or slow their flights or not.
Now I recognize that airlines can't simply pick up the phone and talk
to each other about capacity decisions. Such discussions would run
afoul of our nation's antitrust laws. But Congress and FAA should
consider whether they should grant some form of very limited immunity
so that airlines can discuss with the FAA the most efficient way to
cope with bad weather.
Another short term solution involves alternative routings. I
understand that the airlines, working cooperatively with FAA, have
begun flying many routes at lower altitudes. This practice is costly
since flying at lower altitude burns more fuel--but it should help
increase airspace capacity. FAA also needs to explore the possibility
of accessing airspace previously reserved for military use. Much of
this military airspace can be made available to commercial operations
on a short-term basis during severe weather.
The FAA must also add additional air traffic controllers. And FAA
must make sure that these controllers have the most modern, up-to-date
tools available to do their jobs.
The FAA needs to take full advantage of GPS technology to allow more
direct routings between airports. FAA also needs to develop technology
to allow pilots and air traffic controllers to communicate more
effectively with each other. One such technology is advanced data links
which could reduce controllers' workload and improve their ability to
create and communicate alternative routines in severe weather. It would
be far more accurate and efficient for many air traffic control
commands to be given to pilots in written form. The airlines and the
FAA are currently undergoing tests along those lines, but I believe
they must move forward more quickly.
Finally, we in Congress must continue to increase FAA research and
operating budgets. We need to expand programs that examine the problems
of aging aircraft. And we need to invest more in technologies that will
give both pilots and air traffic controllers the very best equipment
for making safe decisions. We've got to fully fund NASA aviation
programs like the one designed to better detect wake-vortex trailing
behind aircraft. Such technology can allow the FAA to narrow the
decades old 7-mile separation standard and free up more airspace.
But these actions alone will not be sufficient. Our current system
can barely handle the roughly 600 million passengers that currently
travel each year. Yet, it is projected that the system will need to
handle an expected 1 billion annual passengers within the next decade.
Indeed, our demand for air travel seems ready to overrun our over-
burdened system. In some cases, we do need to add additional runway
capacity.
Let's look specifically at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.
O'Hare is a place that I--and hundreds of thousands of fellow Iowans
who land or connect through there every year--know well. On a blue-sky
day, it's one of the best, most efficient airports in America. However,
when the rain clouds or thunderstorms roll in, O'Hare can become one
gigantic travel obstruction.
When O'Hare backs up, the result is a monumental ripple effect on the
entire air traffic control system from Los Angeles to Boston. Because
of its central location and population base, Chicago O'Hare has
developed into the first or second largest hub airport in this country.
It is the only hub that has two major airlines which maintain competing
hub operations. This is good for the citizens of Chicago and Illinois,
and it is also good for the people of Iowa and surrounding states that
use O'Hare to connect to distant destinations.
We in Iowa can connect to our final destinations through such hubs as
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Cincinnati, St. Louis or Denver. However, the
largest share of Iowans choose to go through O'Hare because it is the
largest and most convenient hub for our citizens. O'Hare also provides
far more international connections than those other airports. In fact,
well over 50 airlines operate there. In the past 12 months, more than
360,000 of my fellow Iowans have flown through O'Hare.
So the problems at O'Hare are not just a Chicago issue, they are a
Midwestern issue, and they are a national issue.
This situation calls for immediate action. I strongly believe that
the most important step we can take to begin to
[[Page 24288]]
alleviate our national airline crisis is to provide additional
facilities for planes to land and take off at Chicago's O'Hare airport.
I believe O'Hare should logically have additional parallel runways to
provide expanded capacity.
As we move into this new century, we need to ensure that the critical
pathways of our air transport system are not encumbered by local
disagreements, which constrain the needs of interstate commerce. In
addition, if we want to foster increased competition between airlines
and see continued service to O'Hare from the smaller commercial
airports like Burlington and Waterloo in Iowa, and if we want to expand
services to cities like Sioux City, then we must provide additional
take off and landing space for new airlines.
Some have suggested building a new airport south of Chicago to
relieve the problems at O'Hare. I feel that this is a poor policy
choice. This proposed new airport has yet to attract any airline
tenants who would pay for it. Furthermore, this proposed airport would
drain customers away from Chicago's Midway Airport, which is the 9th
busiest airport in America and provides point to point flights to over
50 cities. In addition, in order to build this new airport, we would
have to take 24,000 acres of farmland out of production. Building
another airport in Chicago does not solve our current problems at
O'Hare.
The solution is new runways at O'Hare. O'Hare certainly has the space
for them. We know that building new runways is far more cost-effective
than spending billions of dollars on a new airport. And new runways
would mean an immediate reduction in delays at O'Hare. These new
runways would allow simultaneous landings during all weather periods--
something the current configuration does not allow.
Normally, in order for a runway to be built, approval must be granted
by the operator of the airport--the City of Chicago in the case of
O'Hare--and the FAA. However, under Illinois law, the Governor of
Illinois, through his Department of Transportation, must also approve
such a plan. Speaking as a friendly neighbor from Iowa, I am sending a
letter to both Mayor Richard M. Daley and Governor George H. Ryan
asking that they approve new runways in the interest of improving our
entire national air transport system.
While I am not privy to all of the local concerns surrounding O'Hare,
I know that all airports confront noise mitigation problems. I also
know that Chicago O'Hare has the best-funded and most extensive sound
mitigation program of any airport in the country. I applaud the Mayor
for that far-sighted undertaking. As a member of the Appropriations
Committee, I offer my assistance to the Mayor and my distinguished
colleagues from Illinois to ensure that appropriate Federal dollars are
channeled into that effort.
I would say to Governor Ryan, who, I understand, favors a new
airport, that I do not see much in the way of Federal assistance for
new airport construction in the foreseeable future. Airports today are
built and/or rehabilitated by airport tenants and their passengers. I
believe that the most efficient way to minimize our tax dollars is to
maximize our current facilities and continue to upgrade our air traffic
control system.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed overwhelmingly and the President
signed, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century, commonly known as Air21. As many of my colleagues know, I
worked closely with Senators Grassley, McCain, Hollings, Rockefeller
and Durbin to draft the provision in the Air21 legislation that phases
out the artificial slot-constraints at O'Hare by July 1, 2002. The
intent of our effort was to increase small and mid-sized communities'
access to the national air transportation system via O'Hare and to
provide for increased competition at that premier connecting hub. This
increased access is critical for business wishing to settle and grow in
small and mid-sized communities.
While we succeeded in eliminating the barrier posed by slots, it is
clear to me that O'Hare's runway, gate, and terminal space constraints
continued to keep small and mid-sized communities from fully realizing
the benefits of the Air21 legislation. I was extremely pleased to hear
about the substantial progress in Chicago's World Gateway program. This
program calls for $3.2 billion in infrastructure investments over the
next several years at O'Hare--including 20 new gates and 2 new
terminals. My understanding is that the two major carriers at O'Hare--
United Airlines and American Airlines--have reached agreement with the
City on this. I congratulate Mayor Daley on his work in bringing that
agreement to closure. I also applaud American and United for their far-
sighted investment in O'Hare. I only request that every effort be made
to accelerate that program and to assure that space is allocated to
smaller aircraft that serve smaller cities so that small town America
gets a fair shake.
Without new runways, we will still be constrained by weather and air
traffic control problems. It is time to remove this barrier to small
and mid-sized community access to O'Hare. And it is time to expand our
current national air traffic system in an effective, cost-efficient,
cost-efficient way. We have neither the time nor the money nor the
political will to build a new airport. Instead, we need to maximize the
resources we already have. In the end, we may have to find a federal
solution to this national problem.
New runways would make O'Hare and our entire national air transport
system run more smoothly. I am certain that the hundreds of thousands
of Iowans and others across the country who travel through O'Hare each
year would appreciate this improvement. As would all those whose travel
plans to other hubs and destinations are upset because aircraft are
tied up at O'Hare. There is no more efficient, effective solution to
aircraft delays in the Midwest and much of the Northeast than providing
additional runway capacity at O'Hare.
____________________
RETIREMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to make a few brief remarks about
one of our colleagues and a good friend of mine who is retiring this
year.
Senator Lautenberg is a perfect example of the American dream come
true. He grew up the son of immigrants, joined the Army Signal Corps in
Europe during World War II, and then attended Columbia University on
the G.I. bill. After graduation, Senator Lautenberg helped found a
payroll services company called Automatic Data Processing. He soon
became the firm's CEO, and, with 33,000 employees, his company is now
one of the largest computing services companies in the world.
But Senator Lautenberg knew that the American dream isn't just about
making it to the top. It's about giving back once you get there. That's
why he ran for the United States Senate, and that's why, during his
eighteen years in this Chamber, he's fought hard to make our country
better for all Americans. He has fought hard to leave the ladder of
opportunity down for others to climb. He's fought to improve
transportation. His legislation and leadership has built and modernized
highways and bridges and Amtrak rails across this country, and he's
worked hard to make sure our planes and trains and cars are safe.
Frank Lautenberg has fought to clean up our environment. Over the
course of his career, he's worked on legislation to improve the
Superfund program, redevelop Brownfields, force industry to cut down on
pollution, clean up our beaches and protect our air and water. And he's
fought to balance our budget. Senator Lautenberg focuses his sharp,
business mind on the work of the Budget Committee, where he is ranking
member and he helped move us from record deficits to record surpluses.
And Senator Lautenberg has taken on special interests like few
others. He took on the gun lobby when he authored the domestic violence
gun ban and other laws to fight gun violence. And he's one of the
strongest supporters of the Brady bill in this Congress. He took on the
liquor lobby
[[Page 24289]]
when he became the lead sponsor of the bill that raised the drinking
age to twenty-one. And he sponsored the recent provision in the
transportation appropriations bill to lower the blood alcohol content
standard to .08--a provision that's going to save hundreds of lives
each year. And he's taken on big tobacco. When you fly on a commercial
flight now, and you can actually take a breath without choking on smoke
from other passengers, you can thank Senator Frank Lautenberg, because
he wrote the law that bans smoking on airplanes.
You know, after he got that bill passed, I was flying out to Iowa,
and several flight attendants came up to me and said, ``Senator, can
you please thank Senator Lautenberg for us. We can finally work now
without all that smoke.'' I hear that to this very day, the
distinguished Senator from New Jersey always gets first class service
even when he sits in coach. I still can't quite believe that Senator
Lautenberg is leaving us. But I hope that wherever he goes, he'll find
a new way to use his energy, intelligence, and talent to serve the
American people. Our country can't afford to lose someone of his
caliber.
My wife Ruth and I have been privileged to be friends of Frank since
we first came to the Senate in 1985. We have been privileged to travel
on many trips, on many congressional delegations with Senator
Lautenberg, as he confronted our enemies abroad and spoke with our
friends abroad, to strengthen our U.S. position both in our economic
endeavors with other countries and in our military position overseas.
We will miss him from this body, but I of course will not miss him as
a friend. I sincerely hope that whatever Frank Lautenberg does in the
future, he will make himself available for further public service.
Someone of his caliber and of his talent, of his compassion, and of his
interest in making sure we leave the ladder of opportunity down for all
Americans to climb, someone such as that we can't afford to lose from
public life.
So, Frank, we wish you Godspeed, the best in all your endeavors, the
best of health and happiness in your future life. But please, if duty
calls for public service, I know you will answer.
I thank the Presiding Officer for affording me the opportunity to
make these comments this evening.
____________________
RECESS UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 9:30 a.m., Thursday, October 26, 2000.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 8:23 p.m., recessed until Thursday, October
26, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate October 25,
2000:
Department of Commerce
James A. Dorskind, of California, to be General Counsel of
the Department of Commerce, vice Andrew J. Pincus, resigned.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Lois N. Epstein, of New York, to be a Member of the
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board for a term of
five years, vice Devra Lee
Davis, resigned.
Department of the Interior
Kenneth Lee Smith, of Arkansas, to be Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior, vice
Donald J. Barry, resigned.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
George Darden, of Georgia, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for
a term expiring December 17, 2003. (Reappointment)
George Darden, of Georgia, to be a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for
the remainder of the term expiring December 17, 2000, vice
Zell Miller.
United States Institute of Peace
Maria Otero, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of
the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of
Peace for a term expiring January 19, 2003, vice Theodore M.
Hesburgh, term expired.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
October 25, 2000
[[Page 24290]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, October 25, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Pease).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
October 25, 2000.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Edward A. Pease to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
PRAYER
The Reverend Dr. Ronald F. Christian, Director, Lutheran Social
Services, Fairfax, Virginia, offered the following prayer:
Almighty God, we acknowledge that Your mercy is great and it covers a
multitude of our shortcomings. Your steadfast love is for each one and
is unconditionally available to all. Your faithfulness is from
generation to generation and is no respecter of persons.
Therefore, O God, we seek Your guidance in our work and our words. We
need Your wisdom for our debates and our decisions. And we humbly pray
for peace in our time, for peace in our community, and for peace in our
world. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a
vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the Speaker's approval of
the Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. FOLEY led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed without amendment bills of the
House of the following titles:
H.R. 4315. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 3695 Green Road in
Beachwood, Ohio, as the ``Larry Small Post Office Building''.
H.R. 4450. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 900 East Fayette Street in
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Judge Harry Augustus Cole Post
Office Building''.
H.R. 4451. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1001 Frederick Road in
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Frederick L. Dewberry, Jr. Post
Office Building''.
H.R. 4625. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2108 East 38th Street in
Erie, Pennsylvania, as the ``Gertrude A. Barber Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 4786. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 110 Postal Way in
Carrollton, Georgia, as the ``Samuel P. Roberts Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 4831. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2339 North California Avenue
in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Roberto Clemente Post
Office''.
H.R. 4853. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1568 South Green Road in
South Euclid, Ohio, as the ``Arnold C. D'Amico Station''.
H.R. 5229. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 219 South Church Street in
Odum, Georgia, as the ``Ruth Harris Coleman Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 5273. An act to clarify the intention of the Congress
with regard to the authority of the United States Mint to
produce numismatic coins, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed with amendments
in which the concurrence of the House is requested, bills of the House
of the following titles:
H.R. 2462. An act to amend the Organic Act of Guam, and for
other purposes.
H.R. 5314. An act to amend title 10, United States Code, to
facilitate the adoption of retired military working dogs by
law enforcement agencies, former handlers of these dogs, and
other persons capable of caring for these dogs.
The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendment of
the House to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4788) ``An
Act to amend the United States Grain Standards Act to extend the
authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to collect fees to cover the
cost of services performed under that Act, extend the authorization of
appropriations for that Act, and improve the administration of that
Act, to reenact the United States Warehouse Act to require the
licensing and inspection of warehouses used to store agricultural
products and provide for the issuance of receipts, including electronic
receipts, for agricultural products stored or handled in licensed
warehouses, and for other purposes.''
The message also announced that the Senate has passed bills, joint
resolutions, and concurrent resolutions of the following titles in
which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. 1762. An act to amend the Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to
provide cost share assistance for the rehabilitation of
structural measures constructed as part of water resource
projects previously funded by the Secretary under such Act or
related laws.
S. 2811. An act to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act to make communities with high levels of out-
migration or population loss eligible for community
facilities grants.
S. 3164. An act to protect seniors from fraud.
S. 3194. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 431 North George Street in
Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Robert S. Walker Post
Office.''
S. 3230. An act to reauthorize the authority for the
Secretary of Agriculture to pay costs associated with removal
of commodities that pose a health or safety risk and to make
adjustments to certain child nutrition programs.
S. J. Res. 36. Joint resolution recognizing the late Bernt
Balchen for his many contributions to the United States and a
lifetime of remarkable achievements on the centenary of his
birth, October 23, 1999.
S. J. Res. 55. Joint resolution to change the date for
counting the electoral votes in 2001.
S. Con. Res. 150. Concurrent resolution relating to the
reestablishment of representative government in Afghanistan.
S. Con. Res. 155. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that the Government of the United States
should actively
[[Page 24291]]
support the aspirations of the democratic political forces in
Peru toward an immediate and full restoration of democracy in
that country.
The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the amendment of
the House to the bill (S. 964) ``An Act to provide for equitable
compensation for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and for other
purposes.''
The message also announced that in accordance with sections 1928a-
1928d of title 22, United States Code, as amended, the Chair, on behalf
of the Vice President, appoints the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr.
Chafee) as a member of the Senate Delegation to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly during the Second Session of
the One Hundred Sixth Congress, to be held in Berlin, Germany, November
17-22, 2000.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain 15 one-minute
requests per side.
____________________
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS DEMORALIZED OUR MILITARY
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Washington Times detailed the
story of Shane Walsh, a former first lieutenant in the United States
Army. And I say former first lieutenant because Shane Walsh has left
the Army. His reason for leaving? Well, the Army he thought it would be
and the Army he found it to be were two completely different things.
Lieutenant Walsh detailed the demoralizing situation facing our
military today. For example, he said how M1A1 tanks sit abandoned with
broken starter motors or unused simply because there is not enough
money left to fuel them. His story is not unique. Our military is
severely burdened by low morale and it continues to lose large numbers
of servicemen and women today and every day.
The refusal of the Clinton-Gore administration to recognize this and
to provide the necessary resources for our military, while still
deploying them far and wide, has caused this desperate and disturbing
situation.
Thankfully, this Republican Congress is truly committed to ensuring
our military readiness today and in the future, and we are putting our
military back on track with the needed resources to keep it strong and
to keep qualified people like Shane Walsh in the military.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO JOHN H. KRAMER, DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC SERVANT
(Mr. HOLDEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a
distinguished public servant from my Congressional District, former
Berks County Sheriff John Kramer. John has been a legend in local
politics in my district for many years and has become my close personal
friend and mentor.
John served as Chief Deputy Sheriff in Berks County, Pennsylvania,
until 1975, when he was elected to his first term as county Sheriff.
John won the primary election by nearly 10,000 votes, and later that
year defeated his opponent by 20,000 votes in the general election.
Following that first election in 1975, John was reelected Berks
County Sheriff four times, and in three of those elections was top
voter of any candidate for office in the county. In 1995, after 20
years in office, he announced he wanted to retire and would not seek a
sixth term.
John was also a sports figure. He bought the Rising Sun Hotel from
his father in 1955 and founded the Rising Sun Athletic Association in
1965. The association sponsored bowling, basketball and softball teams.
The Sunners softball team won the national softball championship in
1975, and in 1976 the team became co-world champion.
In office and in politics, John Kramer valued loyalty. He enjoyed
bipartisan support and was well respected by Republicans and Democrats
alike.
He is a fine supporter of the Reading Phillies and Philadelphia
Phillies and counts among his friends Mike Schmidt, Pete Rose and Gregg
Luzinski.
John and his lovely wife, Doris, have been married for 47 years and
reside in Reading, Pennsylvania.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE TILLIE FOWLER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, due to a scheduling conflict last night, I
was unable to join my colleagues in a salute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Fowler), so today I join my colleague, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), in saluting this wonderful advocate
for the people of the great State of Florida.
The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) came from Jacksonville to
not only be an integral part of this august body but she came to
represent what is the best in America: She took care to make certain
our military was well equipped, she made certain her home of
Jacksonville was looked after, and she rose to the top ranks of this
Congress as a member of the leadership team.
So as we prepare to adjourn the 106th Congress, I salute the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), I salute her husband and family
for allowing her to serve this great institution and our great State,
and I know while her career may end in this House as we adjourn,
hopefully this week, her sacrifice and her help for this Nation will
continue long after this Congress adjourns. We all join Floridians
everywhere in saluting her.
____________________
BRING OUR CHILDREN HOME
(Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, Uchechi Anyanwu is a U.S. citizen born of
Nigerian nationals who were here with U.S. green cards. She had a
younger sister, Ogechi, also born in the U.S. Because of marital
problems, the family went back to Nigeria. When they arrived there, the
father informed the mother that the marriage was over, took possession
of the mother's passport and the children. He wanted to get a divorce
in Nigeria to avoid having to pay child support.
The mother was able to escape with her family's help. When she came
back to the United States, the mother immediately got temporary
custody. The father came back to the U.S. without the children. The
mother and father appeared before a judge in August of 1997 and the
judge ordered the return of the children. He refused, and has been in
jail ever since.
The children were allegedly with a paternal aunt and uncle in Lagos,
Nigeria. In November 1997, the mother got word that the younger
daughter, Ogechi, died of malnutrition. The uncle was jailed for 2\1/2\
months for the murder of his niece, but then was released.
Interpol has verified the child's death, but the burial site is
unknown. Interpol has checked at the aunt's and uncle's home for the
surviving child, but has not found her there. Uchechi's mom has hired
an attorney in Logos, who took all her money and disappeared.
Mr. Speaker, do we have to wait until children die before this
Congress takes notice of children being taken across our borders? It is
time to bring our children home.
____________________
[[Page 24292]]
OLDER AMERICANS ACT IS IMPORTANT TO FLORIDIANS
(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a strong supporter
of the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. The Older Americans
Act has been responsible for allowing millions of seniors across our
country to remain in their own homes and living independently, allowing
our aged citizens to keep their dignity and self-respect.
Florida is home to the Nation's largest senior population, and they
rely on the many provisions of the Older Americans Act for nutrition,
transportation and counseling. Josefina Carbonell, of the Little Havana
Activities and Nutrition Center, reminds me of this each and every day.
Gracias, Josefina.
There is a new and important authorization of the National Family
Caregivers Support Program that gives help to family members who
provide in-home care to older seniors. I am pleased that the funding
formula has been reformed in order to ensure that States with large
senior populations, such as Florida, will receive their fair funding
formula.
The biggest winners, of course, are our seniors, who deserve to enjoy
their golden years.
____________________
COLORADO SUPREME COURT MAKES POOR DECISION
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the Colorado Supreme Court threw out the
5-year mandatory prison sentences for rapists and child molesters.
Thus, over 100 rapists are now out on the street. Unbelievable.
Naturally, many people are up in arms, and who can blame them.
If that is not enough to reward criminals, my colleagues, the victims
of these creeps were not even notified. Not even notified. Beam me up,
Mr. Speaker. The Supreme Court of Colorado needs their heads examined
by a proctologist.
I yield back all the victims of the Colorado Supreme Court. Think
about that.
____________________
VICE PRESIDENT'S ATTACK OF GOVERNOR BUSH'S SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN IS
FALSE
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I heard again yesterday Mr.
Gore's attack on Governor Bush; that he was spending over the next 10
years the same $1 trillion twice, once to start up an investment
account so that retirees could end up with more money, and once on
Social Security benefits. I just wanted to set the record straight.
Over the next 10 years, there will be $7.8 trillion coming in to the
Social Security Trust Fund. Benefits, or the cost during the next 10
years, is going to be $5.4 trillion. That leaves a balance, a surplus,
of $2.4 trillion, and $1 trillion out of that $2.4 trillion is what
Governor Bush is suggesting to use during the transition to start
setting up personal retirement savings accounts that will supplement
Social Security and add to benefits. It will stay in Social Security.
I think our goal has got to be to deal honestly with this problem; to
get a better return on investments than the 1.9 percent that the
average retiree now gets from the money sent in from the employer and
employee.
____________________
IMMIGRATION BILL DISCRIMINATES
(Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the Republican side
to look at the immigration law from 1996. The 1996 law on immigration
took away all discretion. The 1996 law took away all due process. The
1996 law splits apart families. The 1996 law took away all compassion.
We need to repeal the most punitive aspects of the 1996 immigration
law. We need to restore fairness and equity to the system of
immigration and naturalization. We need to give parity to Central
Americans who fled for their lives. We need to allow for families to
reside together, where they will be able to apply for an application
without having to leave this country. We need to make sure and make
clear that this law will be changed. And we need to make sure that both
Customs and the Commerce, Justice, State bills do not pass until we
make sure this immigration law is taken care of.
I ask the Republican side that everything be done to make sure that
equal treatment be taken into consideration in this particular piece of
legislation. I ask for consideration in amending the 1996 piece of
legislation.
____________________
REPUBLICAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS
(Mr. BRADY of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the time of year when
history gets rewritten in politics; when people like President Clinton
take credit for welfare reform that he vetoed repeatedly. Who was
actually responsible for getting the compass going in the right
direction can be quite confusing. For that reason, I would like to set
the record straight.
I think the American people can be proud of the progress the
Republican Congress has shown. Just a few years before we got here,
this administration forecast budget deficits of $200 billion or more as
far as the eye could see, and they said that the deficit is not a
problem; that it is not an issue for us.
Well, Republicans reversed that. In 1998, we balanced the budget for
the first time in decades. The next year we stopped a 40-year raid on
Social Security, where our Social Security surplus was being diverted
to other programs instead of being saved for retirement. And this year,
because of that fiscal responsibility, we have a budget surplus. That
only means we have to work harder to be fiscally responsible and not
allow the White House to go on another spending spree.
We think the best responsibility is paying down the debt.
____________________
{time} 1015
DEMOCRATS ARE FIGHTING FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND MODERNIZATION
(Mr. ALLEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, Republicans in Washington, D.C., are always
talking about what small business wants and it always comes down to
what Washington Republicans want. But when I talk to small business men
and women in Maine, the two most important issues to them are the
education and training of their workforce and the cost of their health
care.
The strong economy has meant that it is harder to find and keep
qualified employees. But remember, the Republicans in this Congress
tried and failed to eliminate the Federal Department of Education and
the assistance that goes to local school boards.
It is Democrats who are fighting for school construction and
modernization, which will improve education, hold down property taxes,
and give our businesses, large and small, a better trained workforce.
On health care, too many small business men and women in Maine can
now only afford to buy catastrophic health insurance with an annual
$5,000 deductible. They are seeing 10 percent to 40 percent increases
in their premiums. They will not get help from the Republicans in
Congress because the majority here will not even support providing a
guaranteed Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors.
For small business, Democrats stand for continued economic growth,
support for education and health care, and fiscally responsible tax
cuts.
____________________
[[Page 24293]]
REPUBLICANS STAND FOR LOCAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, we should rejoice in our constitutional
republic when there are differences of opinion. And I welcome the
comments from my friend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). Although
I think that harsh political attacks, even taking a look at where we
are on the calendar, may be somewhat out of place here.
Attacking prosperity is curious. Attacking local control of public
education is even more curious. Mr. Speaker, ``curiouser and
curiouser'' said Alice through the looking glass.
The fact is we stand for local control, putting parents in charge of
education. And, yes, we invite our friends to put people in front of
politics and join with us in a bipartisan way to make sure there is
full health care deductibility, to make sure that there are solutions
not decreed by Washington bureaucrats but by the people at home and the
business owners and parents in the home and teachers in the classroom.
That is where our strength remains, not in the bureaucracies of
Washington, D.C.
____________________
WE HAVE NOT DONE OUR WORK
(Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we have not done our work. The
Republican controlled Congress has not finished its work.
Where is the Patients' Bill of Rights? Where is a prescription drug
benefit? Where is the minimum wage legislation? Where are the 100,000
new teachers? Where is the new school construction? Where is the
juvenile justice bill?
The majority party has not done its work. We have not been fair to
the American people. They deserve better. They should get better. They
need our help, and Congress has done nothing.
We are nearing the end of another ``do nothing'' Congress that has
not done anything, not anything, not one thing for the American people.
We should be ashamed to leave this place, be ashamed to close this
Congress and not to be finished with the American people's agenda.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members and staff are reminded
that the use of personal electronic communication devices on the floor
of the House is a violation of the rules of the House and Members are
to disable wireless telephones when entering the chamber.
____________________
PEOPLE OF SUDAN DESERVE TO LIVE IN PEACE
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, as conflict rages in the Middle East and the
world's attention is drawn to the crisis, it is vital that we do not
forget other peoples around the world who suffer extreme violence.
One Sudanese man recently said, ``We feel in Sudan that the world
condemns us to die. Why? Our situation the world sees for 18 years, but
no one seems to see help. We need mercy.''
A number of Members of Congress have stood on the House floor to
describe the horrors occurring in Sudan. Yet, for some reason, this
administration believes that the issue of Sudan ``is not marketable to
the American people.''
Why in the world are we ignoring the plight of millions of Muslims,
Christians, and those of tribal religions whose homes, places of
worship, and schools are being bombed? What kind of civilized
government bombs a clearly marked hospital or church?
Mr. Speaker, the people of Sudan deserve to live in peace. Our
administration must ensure that food aid is not used as a weapon by the
Khartoum government against the people of the South and we must support
the IGAD peace process.
____________________
EDUCATION FUNDING HOLDING CONGRESS UP
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the coach from Georgia for
sending me in.
Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here today. Except the problem I have
is that we were supposed to be finished on October 3. This Congress has
provided billions and billions of dollars for projects all over the
country. And yet, what is holding us up? Education funding.
I want to congratulate my Republican colleagues for saying, we will
do something for school construction around the country. But what about
smaller class sizes?
Five years ago, when the Republicans took control, they wanted to
eliminate the Department of Education. In fact, they have candidates
all over the country saying that is what they want to do.
They are willing to now, instead of abolishing it up here, they just
want to transfer funds to private schools. Over 90 percent of our
children get their education through public schools. Let us do not take
the funds away from them.
My children went to public schools. They graduated. They went to
college. They had a great public education. My wife teaches math in a
public high school in Houston, Texas. We have great public schools. But
we do not do it by taking money away from them and sending dollars to
private schools like my Republican colleagues want to do.
We need smaller class sizes. We need help with buildings. We need to
work with our local school boards and our State legislators to say,
okay, what works in Texas, we can help and we will send them funds to
do it.
____________________
EDUCATION IS FIRST, LAST AND ALWAYS ABOUT CHILDREN
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, education is first, last and always about
children. The education debate is not about money. It is about Federal
versus local control of schools and our children's future.
Republicans emphasize local education flexibility, not a Federal
straitjacket so parents and teachers can decide if they need to hire
more teachers or upgrade skills of their existing teachers. We promote
basic academics and encourage parental involvement, not replace the
role of children's parents in their lives. We support locally designed
accountability standards, not mandated Federal testing.
We have tried to drive at least 95 cents of every Federal dollar
directly to the classroom, not bureaucracies bloated by expanding the
Federal role in neighborhood schools.
Mr. Speaker, the liberals have made it clear that in a Democrat
Congress the education focus would once again shift back to the vision
of big government, Washington-knows-best approach to dealing with local
education issues.
Americans know better. They care about education and they are
concerned about whether students are learning, whether they can read at
grade level, and whether they are learning to add and subtract.
Under Republican leadership, we have placed the focus and quality on
results with parents and teachers in control.
____________________
EDUCATION IS AN AMERICAN PROBLEM
(Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, to all of my colleagues, it is interesting
when I hear and all of us in this debate about Federal versus local.
Let us just deal with the facts for one moment.
Ninety-four cents of every dollar raised and spent for public
education is raised and spent at the local level. Virtually all the
policy setting authority for all of our schools across the country, in
my district in Memphis and in
[[Page 24294]]
districts all across this country, is done at the State and local
level.
If we want to point fingers or blame people, we have to blame locals
for our problem. But I am not in the business of blaming. What my local
school districts suggest they want, Democrats, Republicans,
conservatives and liberals, big government people and little government
people, are actual solutions. They want help.
They have problems because kids are learning in trailer homes in my
colleagues' districts and in our districts all across the country. They
have problems because they have kids learning in closets and bathrooms
in schools all across this country.
Now, we can sit here and pretend that this debate is meaningful and
useful about Federal or local, liberal or conservative, Democrat or
Republican. Reality is that there are kids that are not learning, there
are kids that are caught in bathrooms and closets and trailer homes all
across this country, because we would rather debate whether it is a
local or Federal problem.
This is an American problem. I hope all of my colleagues will do the
right thing and pass the education bill.
____________________
SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Republicans will honor and strengthen
Social Security. We will protect all benefits for today's seniors and
ensure that Social Security is available for their grandchildren.
The administration has done nothing to save Social Security in the
last 8 years even though the massive baby boom generation will begin
drawing benefits 8 years from now.
When Social Security first started, there were 42 workers to support
each retiree. In a few decades, there will be only two workers per
retiree. As a result, Social Security benefits will exceed
contributions beginning in the year 2015 and the system will go
bankrupt in the year 2037.
The Vice President touts his plan for Social Security, but his plan
would do nothing to improve the program's long-term solvency and will
lead to higher taxes or cuts in benefits. In fact, the Vice President's
plan would leave the basic structure of Social Security untouched,
essentially gambling that future generations would be able to pay the
bills when the baby boom generation begins to retire in full force.
This is not good. Help is on the way with a Republican White House and
a Republican Congress.
____________________
GOVERNOR BUSH'S TAX PROPOSAL
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a great fiscal debate, a
debate that is clouded by fuzzy fiscal figures. We are told by the
Governor of Texas that he will provide tax relief to every American who
pays taxes. This is simply not true.
Fifteen million Americans pay FICA tax that is pulled out of their
wages, and these 15 million Americans who pay FICA tax but do not pay
income tax will not get a single penny of relief from the Governor's
proposal.
Second, he tells us that he will provide only $223 billion of tax
relief to the richest one percent of Americans. He does this by
ignoring his own estate tax repeal, which will cost $50 billion a year,
$500 billion over 10 years, meaning that his plan will actually provide
well over $700 billion to the wealthiest one percent of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is important. We need to look through the
fuzzy fiscal facts and see it clearly.
____________________
BALANCED BUDGET SURPLUS
(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, for 30 years when Democrats controlled the
House of Representatives they talked about a balanced budget. But it
was only talk. The debt continued to rise and we did not have a
balanced budget.
For many years they talked about welfare reform. But it never
happened. For years Democrats talked about middle class tax relief. But
they raised taxes on everybody in America, not just the middle class,
but everybody.
Then, 6 years ago, Republicans took over the House and we finally saw
a balanced budget, we finally saw welfare reform, even though the
President vetoed it twice before finally signing it into law and taking
credit for it. And we have seen welfare rolls come down across country.
Now that we have a balanced budget, we have a surplus. Republicans
want to use that surplus to save Social Security and Medicare and give
prescription drugs to seniors, to pay down the debt, and to cut taxes
on everybody, especially the middle class.
That is the right thing to do for America.
____________________
CALLING ON PUBLIC RADIO TO DISCONTINUE POLITICAL ADS
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, Americans were shocked this morning to
realize that today public radio is beginning to air political
advertisements. It seems that public radio has interpreted their
mandate to include reasonable access to Federal candidates to allow the
placement of Democratic political advertisements on public radio.
Now, I think they have interpreted the law wrong. But I am calling
upon public radio to immediately take those political ads down. The law
requires, in effect, that they cannot charge for political advertising.
The Democrat candidates are apparently taking advantage of tax-free
paid support to public radio by placing their ads free of charge on
public radio. That ought to end today. If it does not end today, I will
call upon every candidate in political elections to bring their ads to
public radio and next year we will think about taking away their
mandate entirely.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY PENSION AND VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION CHECKS
(Mr. HILL of Montana asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, last week we passed a continuing
resolution for 1 week. The purpose of that continuing resolution was to
keep the Government going for another week while we negotiated some
thorny issues over how much we are going to spend and what tax relief
was going to be for the American people. But that resolution had a very
important provision because it authorized the Clinton administration to
prepare the November 1 Social Security pension checks and the Veterans'
Administration checks.
{time} 1030
It is very important for those seniors and those people who are
reliant on those checks to know that they are going to be there on
November 1. What is important is that the majority of the Democrats,
and virtually all of the Democrat leadership, came to this floor and
voted against the resolution to keep those checks going. What that
means is that the Democrats want to make Social Security a political
issue, and it is the Republicans who are saying we are going to make
sure that the people who are dependent on those checks have the
security they are intended to provide.
Mr. Speaker, today we will vote again on a continuing resolution. It
will be interesting to see whether the Democrats really care about
security, or they are after a political issue. I ask my colleagues to
support this continuing resolution.
____________________
[[Page 24295]]
BIPARTISAN SPIRIT CAN MAKE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS A REALITY
(Mr. ROGAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to achieving
results, not setting up roadblocks. Already we have passed a plan to
provide prescription drug coverage that is voluntary, affordable, and
available to all. When we tried to work with Democrats on this issue,
they got up and walked out of the Chamber.
It is time to put partisan politics aside and work to get a
prescription drug plan signed into law. Vice President Gore campaigns
for a plan to force seniors into a one-size-fits-all, government-run
HMO. Recently, Mr. Gore told seniors a phony story about his own
mother-in-law to win their support for this flawed drug plan. Now he
and his friends in this Chamber are inventing stories about Medicare to
frighten seniors.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican Congress has put the Nation's financial
house in order, we stopped the raid on Social Security, and we are
paying down the national debt. Now a prescription drug benefit is
possible. If the President and our friends on the other side of the
aisle would adopt a bipartisan spirit, we would be able to offer these
benefits next year.
____________________
SENIORS DEMAND GUARANTEED MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is a difference, and I
am glad my colleague just called for a bipartisan approach to solving
the problems for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I would just ask my colleague to pose the question to
senior citizens throughout this country: Do they want the opportunity
to dial up their HMO or pharmaceutical company and beg for an
opportunity to buy low-cost prescription drugs, or do they want a
guaranteed benefit by Medicare? I venture to say that my seniors who
have seen HMOs close their doors in their community, who are crying out
for health care, would argue: ``Give me a guaranteed Medicare
prescription drug benefit. One that allows me to get the same cost and
prices that are given to our hospitals and other large institutions.''
Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. Give them an opportunity to pay their
rent and buy their food and still have good health care. I hope my
colleagues see the light and are willing to pass a real prescription
drug benefit, a real Patients' Bill of Rights that allows the patient-
physician relationship to be restored and for HMOs to find their place.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, it is a shame, too, that we cannot pass a hate
crimes bill.
____________________
LISTEN TO OUR SENIORS
(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I say to the President,
``Listen to our seniors.'' My seniors are being hurt by their
Medicare+Choice plans leaving the market. They are hurt because through
these plans they get better benefits than Medicare offers, and millions
of seniors in these plans are sicker and poorer than most of our senior
citizens and can't afford Medigap prices.
You are closing down their plans, by having increased their
reimbursements 2 percent a year for 3 years, and now offering 3 percent
when costs are trending up at 8 to 10 percent, as well as giving every
single Medicare provider a bigger increase. Your policy is simply
forcing them out of the market.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the President that the plans have already
left the less densely populated areas and in the next round are going
to leave areas like New York City and its boroughs, leaving millions of
seniors stranded. And, cruelly, these seniors cannot buy Medigap
insurance either, because they cannot afford it or they would be
excluded because of preexisting conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I again say to the President, ``Mr. President, help our
seniors by giving the managed care plus choice plans a decent increase
this year. And next year, let us reform Medicare so that the benefits
are better for all seniors and the reimbursements fairer and simpler.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Member is reminded that
remarks in debate are to be addressed to the Chair.
____________________
SECURING OUR CHILDRENS' FUTURE
(Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, imagine an America where
all children receive a world class education and an opportunity to
achieve their dreams in a safe school in every community. Imagine an
America where the best and brightest teach America's children and every
child can read by the third grade. Imagine an America where 95 percent
of students graduate from high school and every high school graduate
has access to a college education.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to this vision for our
children and making these dreams a reality.
Children are America's top priority. Republicans are open to
innovation and new solutions to old problems. Republicans have made a
solid commitment to education, but the Clinton-Gore administration and
Democrats in Congress want the Federal Government to decide what local
schools can and cannot do. This is what separates the two parties on
education policy.
Wake up America. Every child, regardless of family income, deserves a
quality education. We need to increase the role of parents in the day-
to-day education of their children and decrease the role of Washington.
Republicans are committed to securing America's future for our children
and grandchildren.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the pending
business is the question of the Speaker's approval of the Journal of
the last day's proceedings.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 332,
nays 51, not voting 49, as follows:
[Roll No. 544]
YEAS--332
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
[[Page 24296]]
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--51
Aderholt
Becerra
Bilbray
Borski
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Clay
Clyburn
Costello
Crane
DeFazio
English
Etheridge
Fattah
Filner
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hooley
Hulshof
Kucinich
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
McDermott
McNulty
Miller, George
Moran (KS)
Oberstar
Pallone
Pickett
Ramstad
Riley
Sabo
Sanchez
Sawyer
Schaffer
Slaughter
Stark
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Weller
Wicker
Wu
NOT VOTING--49
Brown (OH)
Burton
Campbell
Cannon
Chenoweth-Hage
Coburn
Crowley
Danner
Delahunt
DeLay
Dickey
Dixon
Duncan
Engel
Forbes
Franks (NJ)
Goode
Goodling
Greenwood
Hastings (FL)
Hilleary
John
Kasich
Klink
Largent
Lazio
McCollum
McGovern
McIntosh
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Mica
Morella
Murtha
Ney
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Porter
Price (NC)
Shadegg
Shaw
Stabenow
Stupak
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Watts (OK)
Wise
Young (AK)
{time} 1056
Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the Journal was approved.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4811, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING,
AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 647 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 647
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1100
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
House Resolution 647 provides for the consideration of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 4811, the Foreign Operations appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2001. The rule waives all points of order against
the conference report and against its consideration and provides that
the conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan),
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, for
their hard work. I share the view expressed by the gentleman from
Arizona (Chairman Callahan) that this is a good bill; and as he stated
last night in the Committee on Rules, the funding is too high for some,
too low for others. It strikes an appropriate balance.
The bill contains $14.897 billion in funding, slightly below the
President's request of $15.13 and includes an appropriation of $5
billion to reduce the public debt.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the bill appropriates $1.9
billion for military financing for Israel, as well as $840 million for
economic assistance to Israel.
I also believe it is very important that we are increasing the child
survival and disease program fund and providing $435 million for
heavily indebted poor countries.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that we are increasing funding for the
agency for international development by $300 million over the prior
fiscal year, bringing next year's funding to $3.08 billion.
I support this rule. The underlying legislation is very important.
Obviously, much work has gone into this legislation. Mr. Speaker,
again, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the
full committee, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman
of the subcommittee, as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), the ranking member, for their hard work on this important
legislation. I urge my colleagues to adopt both the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for
yielding me the time. As the gentleman just explained to my colleagues,
this rule waives all points of order against the conference report on
the foreign operations bill.
I consider these programs funded by this bill to be our first line of
national defense. I believe the goodwill and friendship created by
these programs helps prevent international tensions that, if left
unresolved, might lead to more serious conflict. I think that we have
many, many examples like this.
I think the greatest example before us today is North Korea. Mr.
Speaker, I was saying a little bit about North Korea that it is a great
example of what this bill is all about, because we, over the past 4
years through the world food program, have donated somewhere
[[Page 24297]]
between 70 percent and 75 percent of all food aid, and humanitarian aid
has brought us a tremendous amount of goodwill in North Korea.
It has really eased tensions, and I think it has, it has brought
peace to a peninsula that has not had peace in a long time. That is an
example of goodwill. That is an example of foreign aid that goes to
save lives, that has really caught the attention of North Korea, South
Korea, and so many countries of the world.
Mr. Speaker, moreover, this bill represents the spirit of American
generosity and our commitment to the welfare of our fellow world
citizens. This bill empowers individuals. It reduces hunger. It fights
disease. It saves lives the world over.
I regret that many Americans do not see it that way. For that reason,
the bill is very difficult to write. I applaud the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, and the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking Democratic member, for the
work on this bill.
It has been difficult, but the result is a compromise that has
support on both sides of the aisle. I am particularly pleased that many
programs, as well as the overall total in the conference report, are
increased over the levels in the original, inadequate House-passed
bill.
One of the most important improvements in the funding is for debt
relief. The conference report fully funds the President's request for
$435 million, including $210 million in emergency supplemental funding.
This is well over the original House bill. This money will help
developing nations that are struggling to overcome crushing debts. This
funding is critically important to allow these countries to get a
fresh, debt-free start.
The bill increases the Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund to
$248 million, more than last year's level, and this is $77 million more
than the original House bill. Included in this figure is $110 million
for UNICEF, the same as last year's level.
These programs give hope to the most vulnerable of the world's
population, the children. These programs are aimed at improving the
health of the children, enabling them to become healthy and productive
adults.
I am also pleased that the bill prohibits foreign aid to any
government which is aiding the rebels in Sierra Leone by providing
military support or by assisting the illicit diamond trade in that
country.
Overall, the bill provides $14.9 million for foreign operations, and
that is $1.8 billion more than the bill we originally passed on the
House floor in July. It is a 14 percent increase, and I am grateful for
that. Still, it represents a 2 percent cut below the President's
request. Also, it is less than the total appropriated last year,
including supplemental and emergency funding.
Our Nation is the wealthiest in the world. We have the resources to
help others and save lives, and I regret that getting the amount we
finally achieved in this bill is such a struggle.
I do believe that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) have done the best they can in
today's political environment. They have crafted this bill with
compassion and understanding of the world's poor and needy people.
My regret over the low funding of the bill in no way diminishes my
esteem for them and their work. In addition, I believe it is
inappropriate to include in this bill the language that raises the
overall spending cap for appropriations bills. This important provision
should be considered separately.
Therefore, I will ask, or somebody on this side will ask, to defeat
the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will ask
to consider a concurrent resolution introduced by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
This resolution would have the effect of amending the conference
report to drop the language dealing with the spending caps.
Furthermore, the resolution prohibits the House from adjourning until
the spending caps are raised.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, but I
want to commend my colleagues on the subcommittee for their help with
regard to the provisions related to Armenia and specifically the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan), the chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg) for the work that they did on these provisions.
We are very happy with the fact that the level of assistance to
Armenia at a minimum will be $90 million, which is more than what the
administration had requested.
We also have the provisions in the bill that the House language
provides funding for confidence-building measures and other activities
in furtherance of the peaceful resolution of regional conflicts,
particularly with regard to Nagorno-Karabagh. As many of my colleagues
know, this is a conflict that has been going on for some time, and we
certainly want to do everything we can to provide for confidence-
building measures in that region.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, section 907 of the Freedom Support
Act, which prohibits direct U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan because of
the continued blockade of Armenia, the language from the previous year
is maintained in that regard. I think that is very important, because
we need to continue to send the message that this should not be direct
assistance as long as the blockade of Armenia continues.
Lastly, I wanted to say that there is language in the report,
language that says that in the event that Armenia is selected as the
host site for the SESAME project, which is essentially a physics
project, the Synchrotron Light Source Particle Accelerator Project,
there is report language that says that $15 million of the funds made
available for Armenia should support this or a comparable project.
I mention this, not only because the project itself is very important
for the economic development of Armenia and I think the whole
Caucasus's region, but also because it is an example of the type of
development project that we would like to see more of. We would like to
see more of U.S. assistance in the future, not as much the emphasis on
humanitarian aid, more on development aid, and this is a good example.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear at the onset that
my objection to this rule or to this bill has nothing to do with the
Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young),
the chairman of the Committee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) have done their work.
The problem that I have was already mentioned and that is raising the
caps on this particular bill. It makes no sense whatsoever. This is
something that we should have done 6 months ago and would have avoided
the problems that we now have.
What are the problems we now have? Eight of the nine appropriations
bills that Congress has passed and sent to the President would spend
more than the President requested. The nine bills that have been sent
to the President would result in $11.4 billion in outlays above the
President's request.
The discretionary spending caps proposed by this rule would allow
Congress to increase discretionary spending above the amount requested
by the President, by $13 billion in budget authority and $8 billion in
outlays. Now, the blame game has been going on and the finger pointing
has been going on for weeks and will continue. But let us be real
clear, and anyone that chooses to challenge me on these numbers, I will
yield to them. This is the fourth year in a row that the Republican-
controlled Congress has passed appropriations bills with higher
discretionary spending outlays than the President has requested.
Mr. Speaker, although the Republican Congress cut discretionary
spending with bipartisan help substantially in 1996, the first year
after gaining the
[[Page 24298]]
majority, total discretionary spending outlays in the 5 years that
Republicans have controlled the Congress have exceeded the President's
request by $4 billion in outlays.
By contrast, the Democratically controlled Congress appropriated less
than Presidents Reagan and Bush requested during 7 years of the 12
years in office. Over the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations,
Congress appropriated $42 billion less than the President requested.
The 106th Congress is on pace to increase discretionary spending by
at least 5.2 percent above the rate of inflation. This is the largest
increase in discretionary spending. Hear me, the largest increase in
discretionary spending since the Budget Act of 1974 was passed.
According to the Bipartisan Concord Coalition, if discretionary
spending continues to increase at the same rate that it has over the
last 3 years under Republican Congress, nearly two-thirds of the
projected $2.3 billion surplus will be wiped out. By approving this
rule, Congress will be voting to increase the discretionary spending
caps for fiscal year 2001 by $96 billion in budget authority and $67
billion in outlays.
The Blue Dogs have proposed that in exchange for increasing
discretionary spending caps for the next year to a more realistic
level, Congress should set new caps to impose meaningful discipline on
discretionary spending for the next 5 years and avoid this problem.
This is not the Committee on Appropriations' problem. This was a
leadership decision.
{time} 1115
This is not an appropriations problem, this is a leadership problem.
By the leadership putting a budget on the floor that everyone knew
could not be sustained, we find ourselves in this position here on
October 25. The same will occur next year if we do not choose to put
some fiscal discipline into how we deal with budgets in this place. The
discretionary caps for fiscal year 2001 provided no discipline in the
appropriation process, none; and that is why we are here.
Now, after fiscal year 2002, the discretionary caps expire. By the
way, the caps next year that Congress will be looking at will be $551
billion in BA, almost $100 billion below what we are talking about
passing for this year.
Now, let me remind everybody again: the President proposed to spend
$624 billion this year in BA and $637 billion in outlays. The
Republicans suggested $600 billion, which was a ridiculous amount; and
they could not find votes on their own side. The Blue Dogs suggested
617 and 733. Now, today, with this vote, everyone that votes for this
rule is voting to increase the caps over and above what the President
requested and over and above what we would have had bipartisan
cooperation for in holding the fiscal discipline in this body.
The Blue Dogs suggested a number. The leadership in this House said
under no circumstances will we do anything other than what we are
wanting. Now this is what they are going to get. They will vote for
increasing these caps, and so stop going out in campaigns all over the
country and blaming Democrats for being the high spenders. It does not
wash. It will not wash. I would be glad to yield to anyone that
suggests that anything that I am saying is not 100 percent the truth.
Quit talking about big-spending Democrats. Let us start talking about a
big-spending Congress. Let us start talking about someone that had a
grand strategy that would bring us almost to the election year in
keeping us here by trying to come up with a false impression of what
the budget will be.
Vote against this rule because of the caps, and then let us do our
job.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I thank him for his work. I thank the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) of the Committee on Rules on the
Republican side for bringing this bill to the floor. I thank the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi) and certainly the distinguished gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) for his work.
I wish that we were discussing this weeks ago when we were piling up
a lot of pork all over these bills, particularly roads and bridges
which all of us need, and various other entities, because I consider
this bill a bill that spells relief. And I hope that there will be a
way that we handle our fiscal responsibilities in a proper manner, but
we also realize the importance of this initiative.
First of all, this bill protects and allows us to be the responsible
world leader and promoter of democracy that is so very important. It
also says that we value the needs of women around this world as it
relates to legitimately based family planning. The agreement also
applauds the fact that there is now a sense of freedom in the former
Yugoslavia, Serbia. It authorizes up to $100 million for assistance to
Serbia; and having been in Kosovo and Albania and having seen Milosevic
up close and knowing what he did to those people and that region, this
is good news that we have an opportunity to stabilize that area.
I support the $2.3 billion for development aid, including $963
million for child survival and disease fund. The worst thing that we
can find in developing nations are the number of children that are
dying, the lack of opportunity, the poor health. This will be remedied
in a large degree.
Let me also thank the leaders as well who I worked with of the
Congressional Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Leach); and I know there are many others, including the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) on the Marshall Plan. There is
money in here to begin talking about fighting worldwide AIDS, but there
is $435 million in debt relief. This is a jubilee day for all of the
religious denominations from the Jewish community to the Catholic
community, the Muslim community, the Protestant community, if I might
cite the general conference of Seventh-day Adventists who have been
missionaries in the fields in these developing nations for many, many
years. This is a fine day if this bill is passed, because we begin to
start telling countries that we can build schools, we can build
hospitals, we can build housing, we can tend to those who are
devastatingly ill, we can begin nutrition plans, begin agricultural
plans, we can do this because we do not have to pay the enormous amount
of debt.
I would say that there is a 20-month delay on this for us to
determine whether this can be implemented. I hope we move this along
rather quickly. I hope we do not put a high bar for these developing
nations so that they can, in fact, do what they need to do. I have
worked very closely; in fact, as a freshman member, I added $1 million
to the African Development Fund Bank. I am delighted that it is now
funded at $100 million.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why there is the old adage, teach them to
fish and they will be able to eat for days and days and years and years
as opposed to giving them a fish. This is what the African Development
Fund Bank does. It, in fact, gives them the ability to build small
enterprises. It is an excellent program, and I support it.
I was a strong supporter of peacekeeping missions and I am gratified
that we are engaged in peace, but I am also gratified on this point,
Mr. Speaker.
The Congo, unfortunately, gets no money. I am hoping that we can find
peace in the Congo in that region based upon African nations coming
together and realizing that this country, the former Zaire, has to be
in the midst of creating its own peace and not war. Then I am delighted
that there is language dealing with prohibiting any country that
provides support to Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front for any
other country from helping, to prohibiting any money going to those
countries that would destabilize those regions.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill; and I hope that it passes.
[[Page 24299]]
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for his hard work on this bill. I know they have
tried to forge an effective compromise.
I do want to touch on a few things that I think are important as we
go through this debate. The gentlewoman from Texas just said that this
was a ``jubilee day'' for people of all religious faiths because of
debt forgiveness, because now we can build schools across the world,
and because children can now get vaccines. But I think it is important
for us to recognize today that this money is not going to build
schools. This money is going to bankers for debt relief.
So let us not sing that jubilee song too loudly.
Secondly, she implored that we not set the bar so high. Let me tell
my colleagues something. Part of the problem is, and part of the reason
that I oppose this bill, is that most of these countries are in debt
today because their economic systems are in chaos and the IMF has not
held them accountable. In fact, when a provision was attempted to be
inserted on the Senate side that would have required these countries
receiving debt forgiveness to open up their markets to world trade, it
was rejected.
I would ask everybody to look at the countries whose debts are being
forgiven today, and compare it to a Heritage Foundation and Wall Street
Journal report on the Index of Economic Freedom. Heritage and the Wall
Street Journal compile this list by judging economic freedom in 161
countries on factors like trade policy, fiscal burden of government,
government intervention in the economy, monetary policy, capital flow
in foreign investment, banking, wages and prices, property rights,
regulation, and the black market.
And, surprise of surprises: the 30 countries whose debts are being
forgiven are the least free economically, restrict trade and have more
centralized, socialistic-type governments that control the economies of
the debtor nations.
Under some circumstances, I might not have a problem forgiving these
debts. But today we are forgiving debt without requiring the type of
reforms that would prevent these countries from coming back to us to
ask for debt forgiveness again in 4 or 5 years. We know they are going
to come back, because we are not requiring economic reform in these
countries. It is a lesson we should have learned over and over again.
I know this bill is going to pass. But after everybody votes for this
debt forgiveness plan, I ask that they go back and look at the Wall
Street Journal's and Heritage's Index of Economic Freedoms.
Again, it is no coincidence that these 30 countries that are going to
be bailed out by American tax dollars today, through their banks, are
the same ones that are the most restrictive economically. Before this
happens again, I hope we demand reforms in the way that the IMF loans
money and the way these countries have the debt forgiven by American
taxpayers.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member on the Committee
on Appropriations and the former chairman. He has also been a great
proponent of humanitarian aid for many years, and he has played a major
part in helping a lot of people all over the world.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let me say that I think the bill that has been developed, the
underlying bill, the foreign operations appropriations bill is a quite
responsible bill; and I congratulate everyone who is involved,
especially the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
I want to talk, however, about something which has been attached to
this bill in the form of the Stevens amendment, because I think that
amendment brings us face-to-face with what has essentially been the
institutional dishonesty which has plagued this Congress going back to
1981.
What happened in 1981 and in many years since is that after the
passage of the Budget Act, which imposed a new budget organization plan
on the Congress, the Congress, beginning with 1981, began to pass a
series of fictional budget resolutions. They are outlines which the
Congress has to pass of expected budget activities; and after those
outlines are passed, then we can proceed to pass the actual
appropriation bills.
What has happened since 1981 is that the Congress has adopted fixed
targets for spending based on assumptions that are totally false or at
variance with what we really expected to happen down the line. Because
those assumptions about what will happen next in the Congress are so at
variance with the truth, those assumptions have allowed the Congress to
then pretend that it had room in the budget to pass very large tax
cuts, which we did in 1981; to pass very large spending increases,
which we did in 1981. We essentially doubled the military budget on
borrowed money.
The Congress pretended, at the time, that it was not doing it on
borrowed money; it pretended it was paying for it. So for 18 years, we
have been digging out from the deficits caused by the failure of those
initial budget assumptions to really tell Congress ahead of time what
would happen to the deficit if certain actions were taken.
Now we face the same situation again. We had a budget deal in 1997,
and both the administration and the Congress agreed they were going to
jump off the cliff and assume certain things were going to happen over
the next few years; and they did. And as a result, this Congress
proceeded under a budget resolution which, in the end, had to be hugely
amended in order to fit our actions into those budget fixes.
Now we have this situation. The permanent budget ceiling under which
we have been operating for appropriated money is $541 billion.
{time} 1130
The budget resolution, which sort of bent that original number, the
budget resolution that we have been operating under is about $600
billion. Now the Stevens amendment is an attempt to bring that number
into some relationship to reality. The Stevens amendment requires that
we change that number to $637 billion in discretionary spending for the
next year.
Then guess what happens next year? Next year, the number reverts, and
it goes back down to $551 billion. Is there one person on this floor
who believes that, having raised that cap from $541 billion to $600
billion to $637 billion this year, that the Congress next year is going
to cut enough money to get down to $551 billion in discretionary
spending? Anybody who believes that the Congress is going to do that
needs three straightjackets and a visit to the funny farm. It just is
not going to happen that way.
So my objection to the Stevens amendment is not in what it attempts
to do. It attempts to bring this institution closer to the truth. My
problem is that it contains an implied lie for the next fiscal year.
This is not the fault of the author of the amendment. He is just trying
to get through the day 1 year at a time.
But the problem is that, by keeping that number in place in the out
years, this institution, in effect, continues to lie to the American
people about what we expect to be spent in future years.
So under these circumstances, there is not a Member of this body who
has a right to question the veracity of either candidate for President
so long as we continue to follow these fictions.
So that is why I am going to vote no on the rule. That is why I am
going to vote no on the previous question, so that we can separate out
this question and have an honest discussion of what our expectations
are, not just for this year, but for the years to come.
I also have another concern. This Congress has added billions of
dollars in appropriation bills which have passed above the President's
request in several instances. Some of that spending I voted for and
some of it I voted
[[Page 24300]]
against. Now this ceiling is being adjusted to take into account all of
that spending and also supposedly to make room for the other bills
which have yet to be passed.
The major bill which has yet to be passed is the Labor, Health and
Education bill. That is the bill that sums up our concern about people
in the shadows of life: the weak, the young, the old, the sick. I am
not at all certain that the assumptions that will be made about this
number will enable us to meet our responsibilities on that bill.
I do not want to be seen as endorsing this number which would, in
essence, bless all of the additional spending that has been approved by
this Congress so far this year, but then put us in a position where
when Education comes before us, we then say, ``Oh, no, no, no, no, no,
no, no, there is not enough room under the budget ceiling.''
Oh, yes, we made enough room for the Energy and Water bill. We made
enough room for the Defense bill. We made enough room for the
Agriculture bill and the Transportation bill. But, oh, no, no, no, no,
no, no, no, no room in the inn to meet our responsibilities on class
size, on teacher training, on after-school centers, on Pell Grants, on
educations for disabled children. That is my concern with this process.
So I want to vote for the foreign aid bill. If there is a responsible
coalition, a majority of people in both caucuses for that bill, I
intend to do so. But I would ask people to vote no on the previous
question on the rule so that we can have a more honest, for once,
discussion with our constituents about what this Congress is really
spending this year and does really intend to spend in the coming years.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that I intend to vote for the previous
question, and I intend to vote for the rule. This rule is basically the
same rule that we have adopted for every appropriations bill. There is
nothing unusual in the rule.
So we should do what we have done in all other instances. We ought to
pass the rule so that we can get about the consideration of the bill on
Foreign Operations.
On the previous question, the issue that the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) has indicated he will oppose the previous question so that
he can offer an amendment to the rule which would provide a vehicle for
us to eliminate the language in the bill relative to the budget caps.
Now, I do not have a strong disagreement with the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on the budget caps, because I think he and I both
agreed earlier in the year that the budget resolution was not
realistic, that it did not really provide for the priorities of the
Congress and for the priorities of the President of the United States.
But, nevertheless, the Congress adopted a budget resolution at a
specific number. Well, obviously, as we took up the bills and as we
passed it through the House, which we have passed all of them through
the House, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot say that often enough, we have
passed all those bills through the House, but then we have to negotiate
with our colleagues in the other body because their priorities very
often are different than our priorities. Once we resolve that, then we
have priorities from the President of the United States whose
priorities are different.
So we have one overall number, but three sets of priorities; and they
do not all fit into that over-all number.
So the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I do not disagree on
that. We have made that fairly clear throughout the year. So now we
come to the point of getting real. It has been suggested on several
occasions in the debates before that these budget numbers are not real.
Well, now we are at the point where we are getting real because the
appropriations bills have all passed the House. We bring today the
next, after the Foreign Operations bill today, there are only two other
appropriations vehicles out there for us to take up and consider, pass
and send to the President. So we are at crunch time.
A lot of those issues were real thorny and controversial, most of
which have nothing at all to do with appropriations, most of which are
something not related at all to appropriations, but appropriations
bills are being used as vehicle just to deal with these philosophical
or these political or these authorizing-type issues.
As the House passed the bills, we knew that we would be exceeding the
caps. So in the House on the appropriation bills, we waived the caps.
But this provision from this bill that the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) objects to, it is a provision that would apply to the
Senate.
The other body needs this language because they have advised us that,
without increasing the budget number, the caps, that they would not be
able to consider any further appropriations bills.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up one thing. It is not that I am
objecting to the Stevens amendment. What I am trying to do is raise
concerns about how it is going to be applied, whether it will be
applied evenly to all bills, including Labor-HHS.
Secondly, what I object to is the fiction that, after this cap gets
raised to $637 billion, that somehow this Congress expects next year to
drop back down to $551 billion. I think that the Committee on the
Budget's procedures are forcing this Congress to live under a ludicrous
fiction which, in essence, is a public lie which none of us should be
participating in.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) and I have agreed with each other many times that the budget
process is far from perfect. We attempted to make some changes earlier
this year, but we were not successful with legislation that would have
made some changes. But he and I do not disagree on that.
But the point is, in order for the Senate to continue to proceed with
consideration of further appropriations bills, they need this budget
cap raised. Because under their rules, they have to do this. In the
House, we do not have to. This does not affect the House. We have
already taken care of that problem in our House. But in the other body,
they need to do this and they need a 60-Member vote in order to
accomplish it.
So if we do not do it on this bill, we are going to have to do it on
the next bill, which hopefully we will have on the floor tomorrow if a
couple of unsettled issues are settled, and that is the Commerce
Justice bill, that would be applied to another bill. The Commerce
Justice bill the Senate has not passed. So it has got to be connected
to another bill, which we expect to be the District of Columbia
appropriations bill, which both Houses have passed.
So we really need to do this. It is not a matter of whether one likes
it or whether one does not like it. But if we are going to conclude our
work, not in the House, but if we are going to conclude our work in the
other body, we have to do this. So we might as well do it now, get it
over with, and get on about our business. Hopefully, before the week is
over, we will conclude the consideration of the District of Columbia
and Commerce State Justice bill and then the Health and Education bill
hopefully before the week is over.
But we need to move this bill out of the way so we can make room on
our schedule for the next two vehicles. Then, Mr. Speaker, the
appropriations process will have been completed. It has been delayed
this year for a number of reasons. I will not take the time to express
my opinion as to why the delays took place, but there have been delays,
many of which were not under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations. But, nevertheless, there have been delays.
[[Page 24301]]
We need to move this rule today. We need to move this bill today.
Then we have two other vehicles. Then our colleagues will be able to
return to their districts and spend a few days on the campaign trail.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this rule today to let the
American people know of the subterfuge that is going on in these waning
days of the Congress.
If this rule passes, we will have a bill which amends the budget law
to raise the spending limits that now enforce our discretionary budget
to reflect the leadership's wanderlust for spending over the past 2
months. This is the day of reckoning for Republicans to wake up and
admit the budget resolution they set forth earlier this year was based
on a false premise.
But in typical fashion, the leadership has decided to determine
unilaterally the fiscal priorities of this Congress without a
bipartisan agreement on education funding. No money for new teachers,
no money for school repairs or expansion, no money for after-school.
I ask Members to support the Democratic effort to defeat the previous
question so we can appropriately decide the scope of our education
investment and then set the new spending levels accordingly.
I deeply regret that we have reached this point in the larger budget
process. This is no way to run a budget process, a Congress, or a
country. This body does not meet. We do not negotiate. We do not
discuss. Republican leaders take off 5 days at a time; and as a result,
our basic work is undone because we are not here doing our work. The
result is one of the biggest budget disasters that anybody can
remember.
My colleagues on the other side have been so busy throwing money at
projects just to get out of town that we have already spent $11.4
billion over the President's request, $11.4 billion over what the
President asked for, and they still have not spent a dime to hire a new
teacher or build a new school.
They have not spent a dime on quality teaching or after-school
programs because they have refused to make education the priority of
this Congress.
{time} 1145
We now pass a new CR every day because we are so far into the fiscal
year and so far behind in our work. We should be focused on legislation
to lift up every public school. This should be the true focus and
passion of this Congress.
Instead, just yesterday Republican leaders rejected the bipartisan
Johnson-Rangel bill supported by 228 Members, Democrats and
Republicans, to help districts with school construction, and they came
up with their own plan that is a day late and a dollar short. Their
plan creates incentives that delay school construction, and half the
benefit does not even go to school districts but to bond holders.
Private investors. Not children, not principals, not teachers, but bond
holders.
We are calling on the leadership to pass the bipartisan school
construction measure to help modernize our schools. This bill reduces
the burden on local taxpayers struggling to finance new construction
for their communities. We urge Republican leaders to set aside their
opposition and provide enough funding for teachers, emergency school
repairs, after-school programs and teacher training, and to put all
these measures into the education bill so the President can sign a bill
that improves our schools this year.
Let us not block progress on education. Let us impose order on this
irresponsible budget process. Let us do the work of the American people
on education. Stop the delays, stop the foot dragging, stop the
electioneering and accomplish something meaningful for our children. We
can still salvage something important from this budget process. Let us
get it done, and let us get it done this week.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee
that has produced this legislation; and again I want to commend him for
his hard work on it.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I am very surprised to hear the minority leader come before this
body, a man who knows the inner workings of this body probably more
than anyone else, and try to confuse this body with unrelated facts to
what we are talking about.
Let us step back from all this rhetoric that we just heard and look
at where we are. The minority leader ought to be here praising what we
have accomplished by bringing this bill to the floor today. The
minority and the majority worked together. We did not sit in some back
room, like we did last year, and negotiate this with the White House or
the President's representative and to come forth with something in the
middle of the night. We have negotiated this bill for the last 6 months
and without outside interference, which is something that the minority
leader ought to be encouraging. We bring before our colleagues today an
agreed-upon foreign operations bill for the fiscal year 2001.
My colleague can confuse all he wants with his lack of addressing
issues in this bill on educational matters. I am surprised that the
minority leader did not say we do not fix the notch-baby problem
either. There are a lot of things that we do not do, but there are a
lot of things we ought not be doing. What we are doing is bringing
before the Members a bill, a consensus bill of both the minority and
the majority that is a responsible bill to provide for the needs of the
State Department and our foreign affairs for the next fiscal year.
It is not everything I wanted. It is not everything the minority
ranking member wanted. But it is a good bill, and it has been
manufactured in this institution without the involvement of the White
House.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman misheard the
distinguished minority leader. I did not hear a single word of
criticism about the gentleman's work product.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think we heard a
message, though, that is going out to all our Members over C-SPAN
television confusing the fact about education and all these other
issues which have nothing to do with where we are here today.
This simply says, as the chairman of our committee brought to the
attention of the membership, that it facilitates the Senate by passing
some rider to our bill that facilitates this bill to come up in the
United States Senate. So I would respectfully not want to argue with
the ranking member of our full committee, but I would say that none of
the things that the minority leader mentioned has anything to do with
this bill.
So I am urging the Members of this House, Republicans and Democrats,
to vote for the previous question and to vote for the rule and let us
get on with the business of the day, doing it like we are supposed to
do it, between and amongst ourselves, without the tremendous pressure
and input in a back-room deal with the President of the United States.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been chastised by their own leadership if
they cosponsor bills, especially on Medicare. The whole partisanship in
the direction instead of working together, while the President and our
leadership and our appropriators are setting down with the President
trying to negotiate these bills; and the President is sitting down
trying to work with us, our colleagues on this side, their leadership,
is so far extreme and so intent on taking back the majority that
gridlock is the answer for them.
I would say when the gentleman from Missouri talks about increased
costs
[[Page 24302]]
going into this bill, I would remind people that the U.S.S. Cole that
just went through a terrorist attack, that incident is going to cost
$150 million to repair the Cole. It is going to take $4.5 million for a
company out of Norway to come and transport the Cole so we can repair
that ship.
The Chief of Naval Operations has put in a report, I have it and I
will submit it for the Record, that says that because of all of the
deployments that this administration has had us go on, $260 billion
worth, which has come out of Defense, we have tired out our equipment
and we have tired out our people. What they have had to do with
equipment is take ship repair money and transfer it over for our
submarine and our carrier refueling, nuclear refueling.
We have 22 ships tied up at the ports both in the Atlantic and
Pacific fleets. They cannot go anywhere because they have had two and
three times deferred maintenance. They cannot go anywhere. Before, they
put them out to sea, hoping that they would not be in a war. Some did
not have Ra-domes, some did not have radars, some did not have crash
control or damage control, but yet they have put them out just to
complete the mission. Well, they are gone.
Right now the CNO, and I am certain that my colleagues on the
Democrat side have some ship repair industry in their districts, is
$283 million short in ship repair because they have had to shift it
over to nuclear refueling for subs and carriers because of all these
deployments. I think that is wrong.
The gentleman from Missouri talked about construction for schools. If
the gentleman from Missouri would waive Davis-Bacon, which costs 35
percent more to build our schools because they have to pay the union
wage, most of us would support it. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Bilbray), in San Diego, has had $5 million by the unions before his
opponent ever put in a nickel. Five million dollars. And they talk
about campaign finance reform. What a joke.
I went to 18 districts over the last month. I went to 18 districts,
and the minimum amount spent by these union bosses was $1 million
against our vulnerable candidates. Would my colleagues waive Davis-
Bacon for their union bosses? Do they care about school construction,
or do they care about the schools?
Alan Bersin, San Diego superintendent, a Clinton appointee, asked me
if I would support a local school bond. I said absolutely. It is the
most Republican thing I could be asked to do, because we do not end up
with only 48 cents out of a dollar going to the classroom. We end up
with a 100 percent or at least 90 percent because we do not have to go
through the bureaucracy of here in Washington, D.C. The leadership on
that side wants to put the money here in Washington and have the
bureaucracy eat up over half of it. We are saying no. Let us waive
Davis-Bacon, let us build school construction, let us put it in school
bonds, and let us get 90 cents out of a dollar and not pay off the
union bosses and make it competitive.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to simply say that I think many of us support the foreign aid
bill, the substance of it. There is no question about it. We do have a
problem with one aspect of the rule itself, and that is what I would
like to address before I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will offer a substitute rule. The
rule will adopt a concurrent resolution striking the spending caps
sections from the conference report. It will make in order the foreign
affairs conference report after the Senate also adopts the concurrent
resolution. It will require the issue of caps be addressed before we
adjourn sine die.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the amendment that
I would offer along with extraneous material, as follows:
Previous Question Amendment--Conference Report on Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act, FY 2001
Strike out all after the resolving clause, and insert the
following:
``That upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall be
considered to have adopted a concurrent resolution introduced
by Representative Obey on October 25, 2000, directing the
Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in
the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations
for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and
for other purposes.
Sec. 2. Only upon receipt of a message from the Senate
informing the House of the adoption of the concurrent
resolution, it shall be in order to consider the conference
report on the bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations for
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes, and all points of order against the conference
report and against its consideration are hereby waived. The
conference report shall be considered as having been read
when called up for consideration.''
Sec. 3. For the remainder of the 106th Congress, it shall
not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider a
sine die adjournment resolution until the House disposes of a
bill or joint resolution to be introduced by Representative
Obey adjusting the discretionary spending caps for fiscal
year 2001.
____
H. Con. Res. 436
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 4811,
the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the
following corrections:
(1) In section 101(a), insert before ``are hereby enacted
into law'' the following: ``and as modified in accordance
with subsection (c),''.
(2) In section 101(b), insert before the period at the end
the following: ``, modified in accordance with subsection
(c)''.
(3) At the end of section 101, add the following new
subsection:
``(c) The modification referred to in subsections (a) and
(b) to the text of the bill referred to in subsection (a) is
as follows: title VII is modified by striking section 701.''.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous
[[Page 24303]]
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
The vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his courtesy. I
think we have had a very interesting debate. I want to reiterate that
the underlying legislation is extremely important; the foreign aid
legislation. The rule is fair, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
I thought it was interesting that we heard, during the debate,
criticism of the budget process by our friends on the other side of the
aisle, a budget process that was created when they were in the
majority. Now they criticize it. We heard that we spend too much money,
and yet they say that a number of their priorities are not met; that
they need more money. They have said that we have taken too long, and
yet then we hear that they would be comfortable if they had more time.
So, obviously, that is the essence of debate: Honest disagreement.
I again want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan), for what I consider a very good work product and to
reiterate what we heard from the chairman, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young). It is time to pass this legislation and move on to the
other two appropriations conference reports that we need to pass as
well.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution as well as the
conference report, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,
nays 197, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 545]
YEAS--210
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--25
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Danner
Delahunt
Dickey
Edwards
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Hastings (FL)
John
Klink
Largent
Lazio
McCollum
McGovern
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Peterson (PA)
Shadegg
Stupak
Talent
Watts (OK)
Wise
{time} 1217
Mr. FORBES changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 647, I call
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4811) making appropriations
for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 647, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
October 24, 2000, at page H10759.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan)
[[Page 24304]]
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
General Leave
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4811, and that I may
include tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the House the fiscal year 2001
conference report for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs.
It includes no new taxes. It protects the national security, and it
does nothing to threaten the solvency of the Social Security system.
This is my sixth and final year, under the rules, as chairman of this
subcommittee; and I want to take this opportunity to thank the
subcommittee, the entire subcommittee, including the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), our ranking member, and all of the staff who
have worked so well with me during this last 6 years.
Mr. Speaker, I am especially proud that we reached our compromise
agreement within the Congress as required by the Constitution and
without participation at the White House. As some may recall at this
very moment last year, we were negotiating with the White House on the
year 2000 appropriation bill for foreign operations. In the middle of
the night, a document was brought to me that I totally disagreed with
that was negotiated by Jack Lew, the President's representative to the
Congress on these issues. So incensed was I, Mr. Speaker, that I
refused to handle the bill and voted against my own bill.
This year we did it right. Even though there are some things in this
bill that I do not totally agree with, there are some things and most
things I do agree with.
What I am especially proud of is that we were able to work with the
minority and that we worked out, as the Constitution says, an agreement
between the House and the Senate minority and the majority; and we
bring before this House today a bill that was handled by the House of
Representatives and the United States Senate and not consummated in
some back room negotiating with some bureaucrat from the White House. I
am especially pleased with that.
Mr. Speaker, this bill totals $14.9 billion in discretionary budget
authority. It includes $14.4 billion in regular funding and just under
$500 million in supplemental funding. These supplements were originally
requested for the fiscal year 2000, but have been included in this
conference report to meet urgent needs in Southern Africa and Eastern
Europe and to provide part of the debt relief package for heavily
indebted poor countries.
If we include the President's regular budget request for fiscal year
2001, plus the request for the fiscal year 2000 supplementals that are
included in the conference agreement, the President's total request was
$15.8 billion. This conference report is almost $900 million below the
President's request. We are also at $1.5 billion below the fiscal 2000
enacted level.
While we did cut funding significantly below the President's request,
we were able to provide full funding for debt relief and provide $42
million more than he requested for overseas refugees. This bill
contains $435 million for debt relief, as well as important reforms
affecting the International Monetary Fund. I remain skeptical but
hopeful that the HIPC program will actually help poor people as
intended. I ask all of the religious leaders who supported HIPC to work
with the committee to make sure that it lives up to the promises that
were made.
The conference agreement also includes $315 million in funding to
combat HIV/AIDS and $60 million to limit tuberculosis, both of which
are very important priorities for Members on both sides of the aisle.
I am especially proud of the $295 million provided for the child
survival and maternal health, the program that has helped Rotary
International help eliminate polio. It is the best thing this Congress
has done in the last 5 years since I have been chairman.
The conference report continues to phase out economic assistance to
Israel, while providing an increase of $60 million to meet Israel's
current military needs. Of the total funding in this bill, over $5.2
billion, or 35 percent of it, is dedicated to the Middle East. As
usual, we prohibit funding for the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.
While funds are available for the West Bank/Gaza program of AID, they
are subject to the overall Middle East spending cap. Based on a freeze
on Middle East spending, with the exception of the increase in military
assistance for Israel, the administration's request for this program is
cut by approximately 25 percent.
The conference report also restores funding for foreign military
financing grants for our allies and friends around the world. The
Waters and Lee amendments that were adopted on the House floor would
have resulted in the elimination of our military assistance to the
countries of Eastern Europe and to the Baltic States. Those amendments
also cut funding for Israel. Given what is going on in the Middle East,
we could not accept cuts in Israel's military assistance that were
approved by the House and have to have provided full funding.
{time} 1230
We have provided up to $100 million in assistance for Serbia. While
that aid is conditioned upon Serbian cooperation with the prosecution
of war criminals and other matters, we suspend the application of these
provisions until March 31, 2001, in order to give the new democratic
government in Serbia time to consolidate its gains. Until that time, we
expect the Department of State will use existing authority under the
appropriations accounts for Eastern Europe to weigh provisions of law
that could unduly complicate the provision of assistance to Serbia,
such as section 564 of the conference report.
We also provide $89 million in assistance for Montenegro and $65
million in assistance for Croatia and urge support for Macedonia based
on its cooperation during the Kosovo air campaign.
The conference agreement also provides $25 million for the
International Fund for Ireland in support of the Good Friday peace
agreement. This is a $5.4 million appropriation above the President's
request, but I believe it is important that we continue to provide as
much support as possible to bring peace to Ireland.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members support the passage of this
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
[[Page 24305]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.030
[[Page 24306]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.031
[[Page 24307]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.032
[[Page 24308]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.033
[[Page 24309]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in presenting our
Foreign Operations conference report. I do not use this word often
around here about legislation that is being brought to the floor, but I
really am genuinely proud of the priorities that are in this bill.
Would I like to see more money in some of the areas, for example, in
the AIDS account? Yes. As I said last night to the Committee on Rules,
this is not a bill I would have written; but it is a bill I can
support, because, while I would have liked more, the priorities are
definitely in order.
Before I begin my remarks about the bill, Mr. Speaker, I want to
acknowledge that our distinguished chairman will be managing this bill
as chairman for the last time. I want to thank him for his leadership.
I also want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), who will be leaving the
Congress, who are two distinguished members of the committee.
I want to also point out to our colleagues that since the bill came
to the floor in its original form and today, we have lost our former
colleague, Congressman Sid Yates. I bring up Sid because Sid served on
the Foreign Operations Committee since the day it was formed. It was
the Marshall Plan committee, imagine in those days, and, except for a
brief hiatus when he left to run for Senate and came back, Sid served
on the committee from then, the late 1940s, until he left Congress
nearly 2 years ago. So I want to acknowledge all of the work that he
did to promote democratic values and the compassion of the American
people, and also as a tough budgeter on the committee. We will
acknowledge the staff as we go on, but I did want to commend the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from California
(Mr. Packard), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for their
fine work.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman pointed out some of the aspects of the bill
to our colleagues so they know what they are voting on; and I want to
revisit some of those issues. In doing so, I want to recall to our
colleagues' minds a quote from President Kennedy that I am fond of
bringing up when we do this bill. Every person in America, practically,
or certainly of a certain age, is familiar with President Kennedy's
inaugural address when he said to the citizens of America, ``Ask not
what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country.'' But not many people know that the very next line in that
speech is, President Kennedy said to the citizens of the world, ``ask
not what America can do for you, but what we can do working together
for the freedom of mankind.''
It is in that spirit that I ask my colleagues to support this
important legislation that is here today, because in demonstrating the
compassion of the American people, in recognizing that it is in our
national interest to promote the global environmental health and stop
the spread of AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and helping countries
develop so we develop markets for our products, this is all in our
interest, but it is all in furtherance of the freedom of mankind as
well.
The total funding bill, as has been mentioned, is $14.9 billion and
is just almost near the President's request, a couple hundred million
dollars short of that. The bill fully funds the President's request for
$435 million for international debt relief. This is a very important
accomplishment of this Congress, and it could not have happened without
bipartisan cooperation. I think it never would have happened without
the outside mobilization of the religious community throughout our
country in this Jubilee Year to ask for forgiveness, including debt
forgiveness.
This means the United States will be finally able to live up to the
pledges made 2 years ago to the international community to engage in
meaningful debt relief for the world's poorest countries. That language
has been included to require the U.S. to oppose any loan from the
international banks or IMF when it imposes user fees for a condition.
More on that later.
The bill also contains on the subject of AIDS, which is a very high
priority here.
Before I leave debt relief, I want to recognize the work of the
authorizers, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. LaFalce); the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus); the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters); the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); and also the great work of the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio, on this. This has
really been a bipartisan cooperative effort.
On the subject of AIDS, we are all familiar with the dramatic
increase that this body voted on, the amendment of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), on the day she came back from the AIDS conference
in Africa, and the bill includes $315 million for HIV-AIDS and which
includes $20 million for the World Bank HIV-AIDS trust fund, which was
the good work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on
Banking.
I hoped for more funding, as I mentioned at the beginning of my
remarks, for HIV-AIDS and the trust fund, but the increases provided in
this bill, along with the increased funding anticipated in the Labor-
HHS bill, will bring about real advances in the fight against HIV-AIDS.
I want to talk for a moment about the international family funding,
which has gone from 372 to 425 million dollars. No funding can be
obligated until February 15. However, no Mexico City language has been
included. I want to commend the President of the United States for his
steadfastness on this, excluding this language from the bill; and I
want to also commend Democrats and Republicans for working together on
this, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), in terms of the Mexico City
language, and, of course, the very distinguished members of our
subcommittee on the Democratic side, the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey), the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who all helped
to make this bill a success.
The bill contains a total of $693 million for the Child Survival
Account, part of which we are going to call the Callahan Child Survival
Maternal Health Account, in tribute to the fine work he has done on
this. This account funds the HIV programs, as well as providing $50
million for global alliance for vaccines and immunizations and $60
million for tuberculosis.
The overall funding includes funding for the African Development
Bank, for increased funding for the Inter-American Development Bank.
I just want to say on Serbia, because that is a question that has
been asked, the language in the bill, the agreement allows up to $100
million in assistance for what I would characterize as an appropriate
degree of flexibility. It is a compromise. More on that as the debate
continues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman
for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman might find this somewhat of a surprise
when I rise in support of his bill, because the gentleman has known for
years that I was one of the leading opponents of our foreign aid
programs. I did so because I did not think they worked. I did not think
that the claims of helping poor people were actually authentic. I would
be here on the floor, and I had the privilege of being the ranking
member on this subcommittee some years ago, and I remember being
berated by others who would say this money is for the poorest of the
poor.
Well, I am willing to help the poorest of the poor, but in those days
the
[[Page 24310]]
money was not going to help the poor, it was going to help the people
who ran the countries where the poorest of the poor lived. Under the
dynamic leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan),
things have changed. Reforms have been put into effect by his
leadership that make it possible for me to stand here and support this
bill.
The gentleman has done a good job in facing up to the tough issues in
the foreign workplace. He has dealt with foreign leaders in a very
professional and dignified, but tough, way.
I also want to compliment the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi). She has been very aggressive in making her own viewpoint
known, but she has cooperated completely with the gentleman from
Alabama (Chairman Callahan). They have been a good team.
I would say as an aside, Mr. Speaker, that I really wish that we did
not have the rule that the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan)
could not continue to be chairman of this subcommittee, but under the
term limits that we imposed on ourselves for committee chairmen and
subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has to
give up the leadership of this subcommittee. I think that is a mistake.
I think the Congress will be worse off because of that, because of the
ability that he has to deal with these international issues and to deal
with international leaders, and also because of his ability in a no-
nonsense way to bring together many divergent viewpoints that are held
by many of our Members.
So the gentleman has done a really good job, and I just want to
commend the gentleman as strongly as I possibly can for the good job
that he has done, and tell him that I will continue to seek a way to
keep him as chairman of the subcommittee when the time comes.
This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. He and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) have done a really good job in identifying real
needs and putting in safeguards that, in fact, will guarantee for the
most part that the poorest of the poor that need the help are going to
get the help.
Is it a perfect bill? Is it one that I read every word of it and read
every section and say, gee, I agree with everything? No. To the
contrary, there are still some things in this bill that I would prefer
not be here. But, for the most part, I do agree with what is in the
bill.
Again, I commend the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the good job they have
done. I hope we can proceed to complete that action on this bill today,
because we have two other conference reports that we need to get to
quickly so the House and the Congress can complete its appropriations
mission for this year.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the
committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference
report, and I want to thank our distinguished chairman, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and our ranking member, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), who have worked so hard to craft this
fair, bipartisan foreign operations bill. Of course, also our staff on
both sides, who have done superb work on this bill. It goes a long way
toward adequately funding United States foreign policy priorities, and
it really has been a pleasure to work with the chairman and our ranking
member. I thank them for their efforts and their superb work.
There are a lot of good things in this bill, and I would like to
highlight just a few. First and foremost, this conference report
removes the anti-democratic global gag rule restrictions that have
threatened our international family planning programs throughout the
past year. The language jeopardizes the lives of women around the world
and undermines a key objective of United States foreign policy, the
promotion of democracy around the world.
I am also pleased that this bill fully funds our yearly aid package
for Israel. As recent events have shown, helping Israel, our ally in
the Middle East, maintain its qualitative military edge in the region,
remains an urgent United States national security objective.
The measure also provides $435 million for international debt relief,
a hard-fought victory for our efforts to help the poorest of the poor
throughout the world. One of the guiding principles of United States
foreign policy is that, whenever possible, we should use our assistance
to enable developing countries to stand on their own two feet. Because
of this historic funding, many of the countries benefiting from these
funds will, for the first time, be able to spend the necessary
resources on health care and education for their citizens, rather than
spending large percentages of their budget servicing debt. I am proud
that the United States will be a partner in this international
initiative.
The conference report also demonstrates a strong commitment to
combatting HIV-AIDS, and it also supports a high United States
contribution to the global alliance for vaccines and immunizations and
supports the international AIDS vaccine initiative, two multilateral
efforts to combat the infectious diseases that cause widespread human
devastation and cripple developing economies.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, I stood up here many times before to share with my
colleagues why I think our investment in foreign aid is so important.
In my judgment, the single most important argument for this investment
is that in times of great prosperity and burgeoning budget surpluses,
we have a responsibility to help those who have been left behind.
As a fortunate Nation, we have the moral obligation to alleviate some
of the terrible, heartbreaking suffering in the world. But there is
also another reason why our foreign assistance is so important. And
that is because in the long run, we in the United States will reap the
benefits from the stability shown by our aid.
Countries that are now top candidates for foreign assistance can use
our aid to strengthen their democracies, stabilize their economies, and
improve the health and well-being of their citizens. I strongly support
the bill and again thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of our Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong
support for this conference report, and I urge all of my colleagues to
vote for this effective and responsible bill.
The gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) deserves extraordinary
praise, I think, for his accessibility, his leadership, his
thoughtfulness, his patience, his effectiveness, last of all, but most
importantly.
I would also like to extend congratulations to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
I think the two of them, although it was difficult on some of the
issues, work together very well. I do not want to forget the staff, and
I am not going to start naming them, but the work that they have done
is something that we should all be cheering about and saluting.
There are many things in this bill that deserve to be highlighted.
First, this bill provides important funding for countries in the Middle
East to help support peace in that region. Now, at this most difficult
time, this funding is as important as it has ever been.
The United States has reiterated its support for Israel, Egypt and
Jordan, countries which have successfully negotiated peace agreements,
by providing significant economic and security assistance.
I am pleased also that we have provided $35 million to help the
people of Lebanon. I must point out that this money will not be sent to
the Lebanese government; rather, this money will be used to expand the
USAID program in
[[Page 24311]]
Southern Lebanon, so that American NGOs, nongovernment organizations,
will be able to directly provide services to the Lebanese people while
monitoring the results of our efforts.
The bill also provides important funding for countries of the former
Soviet Union, including $90 million for our ally, Armenia. In addition,
we are financing confidence-building measures for the countries of the
Southern Caucasus to help build a foundation for peace among Armenia,
Nagorno-Karabagh and Azerbaijan.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the cuts made to foreign military
financing during consideration on the House floor have been restored.
This funding is essential for our allies, such as the Baltic countries,
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to support this bill, and the
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, should again be commended
for accommodating the Members of this body while crafting a very
effective and responsible piece of legislation. I urge all Members to
vote in favor of this bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a very valued member of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to thank
the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for his leadership over
these last several years that I have had a chance to work with the
gentleman. I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate
and also including some of the projects. I thank the gentleman very
much for his leadership.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our
ranking member, for her undying efforts to work to get the job done. I
want to thank the two of them. They certainly have brought a great deal
to the floor. We would all hope for more money, at least on our side;
but it certainly is a good bill. And I would urge my colleagues to
support it.
I want to say special thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) and the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for being
persistent, to see that Mozambique, one of the most stable countries on
the African continent, is able to continue in their prosperity.
I know without their leadership, we would not have seen the early
release of the dollars and then the final effort here in this bill. I
want to thank both the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan).
We live in a global economy. When America deals well as the leading
country in the world, it is our obligation to be a partner in the rest
of the world, and this bill begins that effort. And I certainly want to
add my voice to those who say that when we live in a global economy,
and as the richest country in the world that God has blessed us to be
born and raised in, that responsibility is beginning to be met with
this foreign operations bill in front of us.
With the international family planning language set, with the $420
million appropriation there to help family planning for women all over
the world, it is a major effort. I commend the gentleman from Alabama
(Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
the ranking member, for working closely and hard on that.
Debt relief for some of the poorest countries in the world,
understanding that this country only has a small fraction of that debt
relief, that much of it is from other countries, by us being the
leaders in the world, our effort in this bill will certainly help those
poor countries and send a signal to those other countries where much of
that debt is held; Africa, the continent, the largest in the world,
from funding the African Development Bank, the African Development
Fund, helping in reaching out.
This is a bill that we can support. Thanks again to the gentleman
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), our ranking member, for their support of our projects.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the gentleman who supported the previous question
just a few minutes ago.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, there are probably a lot of our staff that
are watching this bill, and they come to Washington fundamentally to
hope that they can be involved in changing the world.
I think in a lot of ways this bill is a breakthrough, a historic
precedent, an effort to really bring about great change in the world. I
am referring to the section of this bill that provides debt relief for
the poorest countries.
America has unprecedented economic and political and military power.
And I do not think countries are much different than people. When
people are successful, very successful, there is a tendency in human
beings for resentment to build, and the person who is successful has it
incumbent on them to try to work to share some of their bounty and to
exercise humility as they carry on with their success.
The same is true with nations. When nations experience unprecedented
economic success and political success and military success, great
resentment begins to build, in fact some anger and hatred; some of
which we have seen exhibited across this world in the last few weeks.
But in this bill is an effort to share our bounty, the wonderful
American bounty, not only to share that bounty with the poorest of the
poor, but then as a Nation to become a model and a leader among all the
other free nations of the world to pitch in and do their share to share
with the poorest of the poor. The Congress of the United States
deserves great credit for the aid and the forgiveness of debt to the
poorest countries in the world.
The President of the United States has shown great leadership in a
meeting that was just held several weeks ago, and his staff deserves to
be commended for their effort to carry through on this project.
Religious leaders all over this country of all faiths, Jews and
Christians, who got together to assert that this is the jubilee year,
the year to give a fresh start to the poorest of the poor, have pitched
in and have been relentless in their efforts to try to make sure that
we share our bounty in a responsible way.
My good friend, my good friend Bono from the rock band U2, who set
aside musical scores and concerts and albums and CDs in an effort to
try to give something back to humanity. This has gone as high as the
Pope, to the President of the United States, to religious leaders
across this country to political leaders.
This program in forgiving debt is not to give relief to dictators and
thieves and other countries. In fact, the reform language in this bill
was written by Senator Jesse Helms, one of the greatest reformers of
the international institutions. I, myself, have chased the World Bank
and the IMF to bring about needed reforms.
The debt relief in this bill is designed to make sure that these
countries act responsibly; that, in fact, that the money that is
forgiven by these countries will be used to deal with the health
problems and the economic development problems of the poorest of the
poor.
The jubilee year is special. The jubilee year is special because it
is recognized in our great Old Testament, and it means that those who
have bounty will forgive the debts of those who have little.
This is not just forgiveness. This is a down payment to give these
countries a new start, to move towards free markets, to move to clean
up the corrupt systems all over this world, but particularly the
corrupt systems in Africa.
What the Congress engages in today is what can only be called a
historic act of grace, and a historic act of grace is proper in the
jubilee year. The United States provides the leadership, but so many of
our other allies and friends around the world must join in. This is a
time when we have provided
[[Page 24312]]
that leadership, and we should be encouraged that we are all part of
changing this world in which we live.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
THe SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebreska). Although remarks
in debate may identify Senate sponsorship of particular propositions,
debate may not characterize Senators.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member
of the full Committee on Appropriations, the long-time chair of the
Foreign Operations Committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are many good things in this bill, and I
especially want to say that I think that the debt relief provisions in
this bill are long overdue. They will not cost the American taxpayers,
because this is debt on the part of destitute countries that would
never be repaid anyway. This is simply fessing up to the fact.
I would simply like to take one moment to make a comment on one
region of the world that is funded heavily in this bill.
I do not believe that any Member of this House has been more
supportive of the peace process or more insistent that the legitimate
concerns of the Palestinians or the Arab world be brought into account
in dealing with our problems in the Middle East, but I cannot begin to
describe how dismayed I am at the way Mr. Arafat, and I believe even
more so, a number of Arab governments have refused to recognize the
opportunity presented to them by the extended hand of Mr. Barak, the
leader of the State of Israel.
This was the greatest opportunity for peace that that region has seen
in the over 30 years that I have been following events in that region.
I do not excuse the actions of Mr. Sharon in clumsily provoking
antagonism in that region, and I recognize the concerns about the level
of violence that has been inflicted by both sides in that region. But I
believe that the Arab refusal to take Mr. Barak's hand is profoundly
and tragically short-sighted, and I would hope that both sides,
regardless of injustices perceived to be created by the other, I would
hope that both sides recognize that it is not just they, but all of us
who are at a precipice, and that is a precipice that we do not want to
leap from.
It is going to be virtually impossible to put together a civilized
policy in that part of the world, unless both sides recognize that the
overall imperative that they both have is to bring peace to the people
that they are supposed to represent. With that, I want to congratulate
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and I want to
congratulate the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for doing their
usual, fine work.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida, (Ms. Lehtinen-Ros).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy
with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman, on an
important project addressed in both the House and the Senate committee
reports, which originally accompanied this bill for the purpose of
securing a clear understanding of the conferees' intent. I am speaking
about the Cuban transition project.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I would be
most pleased to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from
Florida.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for a fine bill.
The Senate committee report states clearly that it supports the $3.5
million be provided through USAID for the important initiative to
provide policymakers, analysts and others with accurate information and
practical policy recommendations that will be needed over a multiyear
basis to assist this country in preparing for the next stage of our
interaction with the Cuban community and nation.
{time} 1300
The gentleman's House committee report similarly supported this
project, and it is my understanding that the gentleman does support
this project, and indeed, that it receive support from USAID.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, the
gentlewoman's understanding is indeed correct. Inasmuch as support for
this project was clearly stated in both the House and Senate reports,
we did not restate it in this statement of managers. However, the
legislative history is clear. It is the committee's intention that the
Cuban Transition Project be supported by USAID in fiscal year 2001 as
indicated.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for reiterating
his support and clarifying the intent of this subcommittee. It is true
that this project has the strong support of the chairman of the House
Committee on International Relations, and I know that this committee
will also be expressing its support to the agency.
I would like to ask if the gentleman would be willing to further
advise the agency formally of his position on this matter. I would be
most appreciative of his assistance in this regard. Indeed, it would be
very invaluable.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would again yield, I
assure the gentlewoman that the subcommittee will continue to work with
her to ensure that USAID funds on these important programs are spent.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Jackson), a very distinguished member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this
conference report. This conference report is not a perfect product, but
I think it is a good compromise and one that we can all live with.
Passing this conference report is important to demonstrate America's
leadership abroad. The aid provided in this bill can significantly
improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world.
Too much is at stake in this conference report; and despite some of its
shortcomings, I urge Members' support for this conference report.
I want to start my remarks by commending the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member, and the other members
of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and the subcommittee staff
for the work that they have done to get us here today. I want to
especially thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with
me in the subcommittee to improve some sections of this conference
report with respect to Africa and those countries that are not as
fortunate as the United States.
If the United States is to maintain its position as a global leader,
we must act like one and assist those countries most in need. This
conference report goes a long way in doing just that. There may be some
Members of this body who disagree, but it is in our national interests
to create opportunities and spread stability throughout the world by
combating infectious diseases, poverty, working for conflict
resolution, enhancing democratization, and fostering the conditions for
economic growth. This conference report, Mr. Speaker, moves us in that
direction.
The budget authority for the Foreign Operations Conference Report was
$14.8 billion. Even though this amount is just shy of the President's
request, I think it does tremendous good. Consider this: this
conference report fully funds the President's request for $435 million
in international debt relief, it contains $315 million to combat HIV/
AIDS worldwide. In July of this year, this conference report was
insufficient regarding the African Development Bank and the African
Development Fund. I worked with the subcommittee markup, the full
committee markup and floor consideration to ensure that these accounts
were increased. I am pleased to say that this conference report
includes $6.1 million for the African Development Bank and $100 million
for the African Development Fund.
[[Page 24313]]
This conference report includes $425 million for international family
planning, and under the chairman's leadership, the conference report
contains large increases for the child survival and disease account,
more than $248 million over fiscal year 2000. Within this account, $60
million is included for tuberculosis, $45 million for malaria, $50
million for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations.
Many nations on the continent of Africa are making unprecedented
progress towards democratic rule and open markets. This is why I had
hoped and continue to hope that the development fund for Africa would
be included as a separate account. As a separate account, DFA funding
would be assured to remain focused on the long-term problems and
development priorities of our African partners.
In July, when this bill was first being considered on the House
Floor, I said, ``In turning our attention to some important regions of
the world, we should not turn our back on others.'' This conference
report demonstrates that the U.S. has not turned its back on the world.
Again, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking
member, and their staffs for all of the work that they have done and
for listening to and addressing my concerns. Again, I want to reiterate
my support for this conference report.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee
on International Relations, I am convinced that foreign assistance is a
good investment for America in two cases, where it strengthens our
national security and where it exports our values of freedom,
democracy, free enterprise, freedom of speech and religion, all of our
exports.
Foreign assistance, when it hits the mark, can make a real difference
for America; and I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the ranking member on this issue when we
have hit that mark.
One area of the bill, though, I am terribly disappointed in and it
deals with heavily indebted poor countries but probably not an area
that we are thinking of. I think in addition to providing them a fresh
start, I had hoped that we would also get in return a measure of
justice for America and for American families of violent crime. Here is
the problem. It used to be in past days that criminals would flee
justice by running to the county line or to the State line. Today,
criminals run to another country or to another continent. As a result,
Americans are victims of violent crime, child abduction, terrorism,
money laundering, drug trafficking; and we have very little hope of
returning these criminals to face American justice.
That is because many of our treaties with other countries are
outdated, but most importantly because 40 percent of the world is a
safe haven for these criminals. They have no agreement with America to
return them for justice here. Mr. Speaker, 35 of those countries happen
to be heavily indebted poor countries; and I was hopeful that in this
bill, we would have a provision that said in return for this fresh
start, work with us to begin negotiations on extradition treaties. Not
that they have to have one in place, because those take time, they have
to be negotiated, they have to be thoughtful; but only that they
responsibly sit down with America to discuss, to start negotiations so
we can close safe havens.
I do not think it is fair that we subsidize any country anywhere that
would harbor the terrorists that attacked the U.S.S. Cole recently.
This issue will not be going away, and I am hopeful that we can work in
a bipartisan manner to address this in the future.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the very distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and
recognize him for the extraordinary work he did in the international
debt relief provision.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 40,000 people died of starvation
and inadequate medical care. Today, 40,000 people will die. Tomorrow, I
believe we will significantly reduce those numbers because of the debt
relief provisions within this bill.
About 2 weeks ago, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Leach); and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus); and myself met
with President Clinton and a representative of the National Catholic
Bishops Conference, the president of Bread for The World, the Reverend
Andy Young, and the Reverend Pat Robertson, and the White House; and we
said that the most important foreign policy initiative for the new
millennium would be the full funding of debt relief for the highly
impoverished countries of the world.
Mr. Speaker, everyone should support this, the most important foreign
policy initiative for the new millennium.
Nothing that Congress has done this year has the potential to do so
much good so quickly as passage of debt relief funding. This week,
Congress and the President reached an agreement to provide $435 million
in funding for a multi-country initiative that will relieve the world's
poorest countries of their international debt burdens. The agreement
will also authorize the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to conduct a
revaluation of its gold holdings in order to make even more resources
available for debt relief. Our success in this area is in large part
due to the consistent and effective efforts of the NGOs and the multi-
faith coalition involved in the Jubilee 2000 effort, who have seen this
as a highly appropriate way to celebrate Jubilee 2000. I fully concur.
This week's victory for debt relief is a fitting victory for them and a
tribute to the Jubilee year.
In 1999, the House Banking Committee approved H.R. 1095, which I co-
sponsored with Chairman Jim Leach. This bipartisan effort laid the
groundwork for this week's agreement. H.R. 1095 authorized a multi-year
initiative that will substantially reduce the debt owed by the poorest
countries, provided they agree to use the resources to invest in their
own citizens in the form of better education, health services, and
serving other critical needs.
Forty-thousand people, half of them children, die each day as a
result of starvation or inadequate medical care in poor countries. Debt
relief will have a direct impact on this tragic situation. By freeing
these countries of the burden of financing their debt, much of it
incurred many years ago by corrupt regimes and dictatorships, we will
help them make new funds available for anti-poverty programs. Debt
burdens effectively hold hostage the public budgets of poor countries,
with debt payments often accounting for 20 percent or more of the
budget. With little room in their discretionary budgets to make basic
social and economic investments or even to maintain a minimal level of
services, these countries are forced to rely on outside sources of
support in the form of grants and concessional loans, which are
themselves too often in short supply. Only substantial debt relief will
help to break this cycle of dependency.
Debt relief granted by the U.S. and other creditors in recent years
is already bearing fruit. In Mozambique, the government has committed
debt savings to an expansion of basic medicines in government clinics.
In Bolivia, spending on health care, education, and other social
programs increased by $119 million last year, a direct result of
savings for debt relief. Not only do the poverty reduction strategies
address critical short-term needs such as medicine and provision of
food, these countries are also using their debt relief savings to make
important long-term investments in their people and their economies.
Uganda, for example, has used debt relief savings to eliminate the fees
charged to grade school students. As a result, enrollment rates have
nearly doubled since the introduction of the debt relief initiative,
and Uganda is fast approaching universal enrollment in primary
education with 94 percent of the primary school age population now in
school.
These reforms are working because the debt relief initiative approved
by Congress requires accountability, transparency in decision-making,
and a responsible use of resources targeted on poverty alleviation. For
example, Uganda's Poverty Action Fund has a transparent and accountable
structure of management, with reports on financial allocations released
quarterly at meetings of donors and NGO's. Working with officials at
the World Bank and IMF, and with oversight from our own Treasury
Department, all countries approved for debt relief will have comparable
systems of accountability.
[[Page 24314]]
But let's be clear about the magnitude of the challenge before us,
which goes far beyond sound fiscal management. Nearly half of the
world's population lives on less than $2 a day. And of the 2 billion
people that will be added to the world's population over the next 25
years, 97 percent will be in developing countries where poverty is most
prevalent. We are facing a poverty time bomb. Our $435 million
commitment is an important step toward improving this situation, but it
will not single-handedly turn it around. I hope that this year's
funding demonstrates a resolve to remain fully engaged in efforts to
address the crises of poverty around the world.
Unfortunately, the tremendous political struggle associated with
securing the $435 million this year, as well as a steadily declining
development assistance budget, should give us pause in this respect.
From Washington's perspective, these are too often seen as the problems
of remote countries lacking strategic geopolitical significance for the
United States. The U.S. spends less in real terms on development aid
today than we did during the 1980's, and we spend less as a share of
our economy than any of the other 20 OECD countries.
My greatest hope for the debt relief initiative does not rest in the
dollars we've made available this year. It is in the bipartisan, multi-
faith coalition that has formed around the issue and around the broader
goal of sustained development in the world's poor countries. This
coalition has given voice to a problem that has no political
consistency within the United States. We must work hard on both sides
of the aisle in the coming months and years to strengthen the coalition
and strengthen the U.S. resolve to make a lasting commitment to
alleviating global poverty.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the very distinguished
ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees international debt
relief, and a real leader and fighter who was successful on this floor
in increasing the funding for debt relief.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the conference
report for H.R. 4811, the foreign operations appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2001. This conference report has broad bipartisan support
and is a substantial improvement over the bill that passed the House on
July 13, 2000.
I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)
who has been the real driving force behind this legislation to craft a
bill that we could all support. But I would also like to thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the CBC and
particularly the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her work,
particularly as it relates to AIDS.
There are many substantial items in this bill, but I would like to
make special mention of debt relief and AIDS. I am especially pleased
that the conference report provides a total of $435 million to forgive
the debts of the world's poorest countries. This appropriation fully
funds the President's request and when leveraged with contributions
from other creditor countries, will forgive $27 billion in debt owed by
these impoverished countries. The conference report also includes
language to permit the International Monetary Fund to use the earnings
from the reevaluation of its gold reserves to fund its share of the
international debt relief program.
Throughout this Congress, I have been working on this issue, and I
have been inspired by the breadth and depth of the commitment to the
forgiveness of poor country debts. I have worked with debt relief
supporters from both sides of the aisle, as well as officials
representing the administration and the Treasury Department, to ensure
that the debt relief program will benefit the world's poorest people. I
have also met with church leaders, development advocates, civil society
leaders from poor countries, and many other members of the worldwide
Jubilee 2000 movement which has been working to make debt relief a
reality. The success of our efforts proves that we can overcome our
differences.
Again, the money that is afforded for AIDS in this bill will help to
deal with the problem of the epidemic that could not be dealt with
because of the burden of the debt.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader in the fight for protecting
reproductive rights throughout the world.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time and for her great leadership on this bill.
We are 25 days late and $11 billion over the President's request. The
bill does many good things, funding for Israel and other countries in
the Middle East. It has funding for debt relief, relief for the AIDS
epidemic. But I object to the fact that the bill also raises the cap on
the total amount of discretionary spending on this and other fiscal
year 2001 appropriations bills by $37 billion.
The conference report is the first step toward restoring the U.S.'s
commitment to saving women's lives through international family
planning without the onerous gag rule. The antidemocratic gag rule
would have silenced women around the world by barring them from using
their own funds to lobby for or against abortions or perform abortions.
This is a short-term solution as it removes the gag rule until February
15, 2001, when the next President would have the ability to support or
gag women's voices around the world. This is another reason why the
choice for President on November 7 is so important.
Last year, President Clinton pledged to women Members of Congress
that he would not sign any legislation that included the gag rule
again. We thank him for standing firm and removing the gag rule that
would be unconstitutional in our own country and it is unconscionable
to force it on some of the world's poorest women.
{time} 1315
This conference report is the first time in 5 years that this body
has increased funding for international family planning. Just 5 years
ago, we spent $200 million more a year to save women's lives.
With the increase in this bill today, raising USAID funding to $425
million from $385 million last year, we are taking the first step to
restoring our commitment to the life-saving resources international
family planning provides to some of the world's poorest women.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who, as I said before, coming
back from Durban, South Africa, was successful on the floor increasing
funds for HIV/AIDS, and with this bill taking a very major first step
for the World Bank Trust Fund.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Foreign
Operations conference report. I want to thank the gentleman from
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), ranking member, for their tireless and dedicated work really
on behalf of our human family.
The funding in this bill signifies our Nation's commitment to peace
and stability and to progress around the world. I am also pleased that
the conference report includes funding for the flood victims of
Mozambique and Madagascar and appeals the global gag rule so important
to women in developing countries. It also includes debt relief funding,
which is long overdue.
I want to express a special thanks to Jubilee 2000, our faith-based
organization, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) for their
successful efforts.
Debt relief is so important to poverty alleviation and to fighting
the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As we all know this pandemic is wreaking havoc
in Africa like no other disease in the history of humankind. But Africa
is only the epicenter of this pandemic. It is a ticking time bomb in
India, Asia and the Caribbean. So that is why the gentleman from Iowa
(Chairman Leach) and myself offered the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund.
[[Page 24315]]
I want to just thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi),
the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson),
and all of those Members on the conference committee for reporting out
$20 million for the trust fund, an excellent first start.
But we must do more. We must continue to fight until we make sure
that we eradicate AIDS from the face of the globe. Six thousand people
are dying in Africa every day now of AIDS. There are 12 million
children who are orphans in Africa.
We must enlist our international partners in the private sector in a
global international effort led by the United States, and we also must
enhance the United States contribution to our joint U.N. program on
AIDS.
In closing, I would just like to once again thank the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), ranking member, for her support, her
commitment and her hard work. I want to encourage her to keep up the
good fight.
I want to also once again thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman
Leach), the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. LaFalce), ranking member, and former Congressman Ron
Dellums for all of their hard work and their leadership.
I remind this Congress that fighting international AIDS is not a
Democratic or Republican issue. It is a moral issue that demands a
moral response.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and in recognizing him,
acknowledge the work that he did along with the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Blagojevich) in helping to shape the flexible compromise that we
have in here, enabling us to go forward with assistance to Serbia while
respecting the work of the War Crimes Tribunal.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) for the work she has done on this bill. This is
a conference report very much worth supporting. I congratulate her and
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman of the
subcommittee.
I have had the honor of representing this body on the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe with some of our other
colleagues, the Helsinki Commission. I just really want to compliment
the language we have in aid to Serbia, because I believe it is
consistent with the position that we have taken on the Helsinki
Commission.
We welcome Serbia's change of leadership of Mr. Milosevic being
removed from power. It is appropriate that we now participate with
Serbia on foreign assistance. I support the provisions in the bill that
does that.
I also think it is important that we make it clear, and we do, that,
for ongoing assistance, Serbia must cooperate with the international
Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, that it must take steps to comply
with the Dayton Accords, and it must take steps to implement the rule
of law and protection for minority rights.
My colleagues spelled that out in their conference report, and I
applaud them for it. It is a good compromise. I support it. I urge my
colleagues to support the conference report.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), a very valued member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, who from day one has been
very involved in helping us shape this debt relief package.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), chairman, and the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), ranking member of the subcommittee, on the compromise.
I support this bill. In particular, on the debt relief, I would like
to make two points. One is, even though the United States is the
smallest creditor among the industrialized nations in this, the debt
relief package would not go forward without the participation and the
leadership of the United States. So it is critical that we take a role
in this.
I would say to the critics of the IMF, the World Bank, the last thing
one wants is for the U.S. not to be involved in this because they will
then take a leadership role. I think it is very important Members
understand that.
Second of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) for his language providing for the moratorium, the 2-year
moratorium, on new debt to HPIC countries. This is something I proposed
in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services when we were working
on the authorization.
I think it makes a great deal of sense, even countries going to the
soft loan window, that when we relieve their debt, that we do not get
them back into the red again. We ought to let them build out of it. I
commend my colleagues for that. I think it makes a great deal of sense.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who has been a very important
part of our challenge to shape language on family planning. He has been
doing that ongoing. He is a very valued member of this effort.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for the
fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
I sincerely thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), ranking member, for their
tireless efforts on behalf of this bill.
From the explosion of violence in the Middle East to the historic
democratic transition in Yugoslavia, the funding included in this
package will have a tremendous impact throughout our world.
The scope of this bill is not limited to bilateral aid and debt
relief. It takes into account important health issues as well.
It gives me great pleasure to vote for a Foreign Operations bill that
does not contain the global gag rule.
The $425 million for international family planning will allow
agencies around the world to do their job, to protect the lives of
women and children.
I want to thank the President for his dedication to eliminating this
harmful provision in this Foreign Operations bill.
This bill provides $435 million in debt relief to regional banks in
Africa and Latin America.
I would like to mention two projects of particular importance to me,
and the strengthening of the peace process in Northern Ireland.
I would be remiss if I did not thank the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey) in seeing that this money is provided in this bill.
The bill provides for $25 million for the International Fund for
Ireland and $250,000 for Project Children. Both projects promote
tolerance, understanding and cooperation in the north of Ireland.
The International Fund for Ireland is a wonderful program which
bridges sectarian and political divides by bringing people in both the
North and the Republic of Ireland together to build stronger
communities. With contributions from the United States, the European
Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, IFI has established the
objectives of promoting economic and social advancement, and encourages
contact, dialogue, and reconciliation between Unionists and
Nationalists throughout Ireland.
Project Children was created in 1995 to bring outstanding students
from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to the United States
for the summer.
This provides students with the opportunity to develop leadership
skills, gain valuable work experience at the highest levels in the U.S.
political system, and offers a new perspective on the politics and
culture of Northern Ireland, Ireland and the United States. Most
importantly, this program allows the future leaders of Ireland to work
in an environment of mutual respect, to demonstrate the progress that
can be made by implementing a strategy, of tolerance and cooperation.
Tolerance and Cooperation. These are two things that seem to be quite
elusive these days.
The latest eruption of violence in the Middle East has been cause for
concern by many nations around the world.
[[Page 24316]]
The United States has been a firm and active supporter of the Middle
East peace process for many years. We have sought to negotiate a peace
that would be acceptable to all parties involved. Unfortunately,
negotiating a lasting peace is impossible when all parties are not
acting in good faith. Mr. Arafat has chosen the path of violence over
the path of peace. The United States cannot condone such a decision.
The provisions and funding included in this bill appropriately reflect
the position of the United States on this matter. I encourage Mr. Barak
and Mr. Arafat to return to the bargaining table as soon as possible.
Nothing is gained when life is lost.
Clearly, this bill covers a wide spectrum of issues that are crucial
to U.S. interests throughout the world. With that in mind, I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), a great advocate for peace in the
Middle East.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I wish that this bill literally had tens of
billions of dollars of more aid for peace in the Middle East, because I
think all of us know that, had there been a closure at the Camp David
meeting, that we would have been asked to do that. I for one would have
been ready to step up to the plate and vote and support that type of
concept.
But I stand in front of my colleagues today as someone who has been
supporting legislation to actually cut back and eliminate all aid, both
direct and indirect aid, to the Palestinian Authority. The reason that
I have done that is, unfortunately, what we have seen over the last
several weeks is either one of two situations.
Either, one, Chairman Arafat has purposely, consciously chosen not to
stop the violence, or the second is that he cannot stop the violence.
Either one of those outcomes, either one of those explanations is
reason enough to stop literally hundreds of millions of American
taxpayer dollars funneling to the Palestinian Authority.
I urge my colleagues, even in the short time that we have left, to
support this legislation and add it as one of our final acts before the
end of this Congress.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the
very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), another
champion for peace in the Middle East.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to commend this bill,
and I commend the authors and sponsors of it: $435 million for debt
relief, funds for peace in Northern Ireland, $2.9 billion for Israel,
but not a penny for the Palestinian Authority.
I, like the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), believe that this is
an opportunity to use this bill as an opportunity to pass along a
message.
For virtually the entire existence of Israel, Chairman Arafat has had
at his desk two buttons, one button that read ``peace'' and one button
that read ``war.'' At every major crossroads in our history, we have
seen Mr. Arafat press the war button.
When it was time to consider the partition plan at the very beginning
of the creation of the State of Israel, a plan that, frankly, hurt
Israel, did not allow her to control Jerusalem, it was the Palestinians
that said no. Ever since then, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians have
chosen war over peace. Today he is waging war.
Let us not be romantic about what goes on there. Let us not allow the
image of people throwing stones change the fact that Israel is
surrounded by nations that are at war with her.
We have to make the message clear from this House that enough is
enough. Until Arafat is prepared to press the button that stands for
peace, we will stand four square with our ally, Israel, in the Middle
East.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 30 seconds remaining. The gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) be agreeable to yielding 1 minute of his time?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, in responding to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), this is my swan song. In order to yield her
time, I am going to have to leave out an entire verse.
Ms. PELOSI. Is that the part about me, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of cooperation such as has
existed for the last year, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Alabama be more
agreeable to a unanimous consent to add 2 minutes on each side?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would rather not do that, but I yield
1\1/2\ minutes of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful for the time. The
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is, as always, a gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this debate today I think points to the quality of the
bill that the committee has brought before the full House. I think it
is clear from the participation of so many Members that they have been
participating every step of the way.
We are blessed in this House by a very active Congressional Black
Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Women's Caucus, all of whom have
taken a very particular interest in this bill and different provisions
in it. Their involvement has helped us produce a better bill.
The involvement of the outside community, particularly the Jubilee
2000 initiative of the ecumenical movement for debt forgiveness in this
jubilee year has helped us produce good policy that will help people
throughout the world, helped us produce a better bill.
We have commended each other variously and severally and individually
as to our participation in various parts of the bill. I want to also
recognize the Clinton administration. We are very proud of the debt
relief provisions in this bill. The President has been a leader on this
issue, has made it a very high priority as has Secretary Summers, Gene
Sperling, his advisor, and others in the administration. They have
helped us get where we are today on that score.
I also want to again commend the President for his commitment to
reproductive freedom by staying with us with the promise of not signing
a bill that would have the restrictive language that was contained in
the bill last year.
Very important to all of this, though, Mr. Speaker, are our staff:
Charlie Flickner, John Shank, Chris Walker, Gloria Maes, Nancy Tippins
on the Republican side; Mark Murray and Jon Stivers on the Democratic
side. I want to commend them for all of their hard work in bringing us
to where we are today.
Then I would like to once again say good-bye to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard),
two valued members of the committee, and commend the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), our distinguished chairman. It is a pleasure to
work with him, Mr. Speaker. We do have our differences.
As I said last night, this is not a bill I would have written. It is
a compromise. It has good priorities in it. We still have a long way to
go. On HIV/AIDS, a disease that challenges the conscience of this world
and certainly of our country with all of our tremendous resources, we
have increased the funding; and with the World Bank Trust Fund, we have
taken a major first step. But we must recognize that much more needs to
be done.
{time} 1330
We must all recognize that all of this is in our national interest,
in our national interest to help the poorest of the poor in the world,
to spread Democratic values, to make the world a more peaceful and safe
place, to expand our own economy by promoting our exports. All of this
is contained in this bill. This is a better bill because of the
[[Page 24317]]
active involvement of our colleagues, the outside groups and the
President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and commend our
distinguished chairman once again for his extraordinary service.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
I echo the sentiments of my colleague from California with respect to
our staff people who have helped us, assisted us, during these last 6
years: Mr. Flickner, Mr. Shank, Mr. Walker, Ms. Maes, along with Nancy
Tippins, my legislative director, have been invaluable to me. When I
came to foreign operations, I will assure my colleagues that I thought
foreign was spelled F-O-R-N operations. They have educated me, they
have worked with me, they have schooled me with respect to this great
world that we live in. It has been tremendous that we have been able to
achieve the successes that we have, which could not have been done
without them.
Also Mark Murray on the Democratic side has been extremely
cooperative, as has the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). Jim
Dyer, Mr. Parkinson, Mr. Mikel in our full committee office, as well as
the chairman of our full committee, Mr. Young, have been extremely
cooperative during these past 6 years. What a glorious past 6 years it
has been and how fast it has gone by. How rapidly we have been able to
learn about the world.
Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity to visit in bipartisan
delegations countries that some of us did not know existed before we
became involved in this committee. We have traversed the jungles of
South America and Central America. We have visited countries that used
to be the Soviet nation that are now independent states and listened to
the leaders of those new nations strive for democracy and plead with us
to send them additional technical assistance. Not cash, assistance in
establishing a democracy and market economy.
What an interesting trip it has been. And I certainly would never,
never regret for a moment that this opportunity to chair this
subcommittee was given to me. With respect to the distinguished offer
of our chairman of our full committee to consider the possibility of
making me the chairman of this committee again next year, before he
does that, I think I should advise him that I have had about all the
fun I can stand. So I will want to talk to him before that decision is
made. Yes, I want to be chairman. Yes, I have enjoyed foreign
operations. Yes, I think we have accomplished a great deal. But before
this final decision is made, let us sit down and have a cup of coffee
and decide what might be best for me for the next 6 years.
With respect to foreign operations, when I first became chairman of
this committee, I read a report about the attitude of the American
people, a poll that was taken about their attitude toward foreign
policy and foreign aid. The American people thought that 20 percent of
the money that we appropriate went to foreign aid. In reality, this
bill that we pass today represents 2 percent of the total
appropriations that we will make this year. So our contribution is not
anywhere near what the American people think.
In explaining foreign operations and foreign aid to the people of
south Alabama, and indeed the people of the entire country, not one
person that I have met during this entire 6 years has given any
indication that they do not support direct aid to people who need it,
to starving children, to sick people, to uneducated people.
No one objects to that. They object to years past when all of this
money was given to the leaders of corrupt nations. No longer, because
of the cooperation I have received from the minority and this House and
the Senate, do we provide much of this direct aid outside of the Middle
East. All of our efforts are concentrated in a manner that will ensure
that the monies that we appropriate today go for the intended purposes,
and that is to provide for the needy throughout the world, the less
fortunate than those here in the United States.
Many comments have been made today about debt forgiveness. Not one
individual on the Republican or Democratic side of this body disagrees
with the intended purpose of debt forgiveness. There are some of us who
question whether or not this entire $435 million will actually get to
its intended purpose because the United States of America has already
forgiven its bilateral debt to all these nations, and a lot of this
money will go to these nations and just be channeled through to a bank
that has made a bad loan. But no one disagrees with the Jubilee Year
intentions of providing for those of us that are not so fortunate. So,
yes, the $435 million is there, and I challenge those supporters of
debt forgiveness to make absolutely certain that this money goes for
its intended purpose.
It has been a great year. I will admit that we have had some trying
times. The chairman of this committee has given me the opportunity to
sit with some of my colleagues at the White House and to discuss the
possibilities of the occupation that we went into in Kosovo. I sat with
some of my colleagues, like the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha), and worried about our troops going into Bosnia. And even
though, for instance, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and
I both disagreed about the involvement of our troops in Bosnia,
nevertheless the Commander in Chief said that that was what he was
going to do, and so we both came back and supported it.
So it has given me the opportunity to be involved in a process even
though I disagreed at times with the President. I have disagreed with
the Secretary of State. I have disagreed with the minority side of this
House. But it has been a tremendous experience for me to have played a
part in these historical events that have taken place during the last 6
years.
So I suppose my swan song on this particular bill, I say to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), would be patterned after one
of her former residents of California, although ultimately he wised up
and moved to the south, to Florida, but Frank Sinatra had that song
that he sang, his theme song, ``I Did It My Way.''
This year, we did it our way. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) and I and our committee members and our chairman of our full
committee sat down together and negotiated a bill that is not exactly
what I would like in its entirety, nor is it exactly what the
gentlewoman would like in its entirety, but it is a bill that
originated in this House, that was compromised within the body of the
legislative branch of government and which did not involve negotiations
at some late-night hour with the President of the United States.
This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that was formulated by this body. It is
a bill that deserves the support of this entire body, and I urge a
``yes'' vote on passage of this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from
Alabama for bringing this conference report to the floor. While this
subcommittee works with one of the smaller allocations, this bill is
usually one of the most contentious. The Chairman and his staff have
done an outstanding job of trying to address numerous concerns while
working within the constraints of, what I consider, too small a budget
for the important programs that this bill supports.
I am pleased that the conference committee continues to recognize the
needs of areas of conflict, such as Armenia, and Cyprus, and I hope
that a peaceful settlement will soon be reached in both of these
regions. I am also pleased that the committee recognizes areas of the
world where unfortunately people have to flight for democracy and the
rule of law such as Burma and Tibet.
Further, I strongly support the committee's continued suspension of
military aid to and engagement with Indonesia until the East Timorese
refugees are safely returned home and until there is accountability for
the perpetrators of the violence which is occurring throughout
Indonesia not only on Timor island, but also in the Moluccas, Aceh and
West Papua.
I am pleased that the Migration and Refugee Assistance account is
funded above the President's request. This is money which is critically
needed in areas throughout the world to aid the most desperate peoples,
the refugees who have been forced out of their
[[Page 24318]]
homes. The increase is especially needed today in light of the
increasing danger faced by refugees assistance workers as seen in the
recent murders of UNHCR workers in West Timor and Guinea.
Also, I support the final funding level of the Global Environment
Facility and the funding provided for biodiversity programs implemented
through USAID. As indicated in the House Report and the Statement of
Managers, the Congress supports increased funding for important
biodiversity programs as protection of natural resources around the
world becomes more critical as populations increase and economies
expand.
Finally, I am pleased that agreements were reached on the two most
contentious issues--debt relief for the world's poorest countries and
international family planning. I support full funding for the U.S.
contribution to the global initiative to alleviate the debt of the most
impoverished countries and I am pleased that the Mexico City language
was not included in this year's bill. The small increase in funding for
international voluntary family planning program is at least a step in
the right direction and will help to improve the health of countless
women and children around the world, but a great deal more is needed.
While I support most aspects of this bill, I raise one concern
regarding the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI). As an
early, strong and constant supporter of efforts to combat the global
AIDS epidemic, I support the overall goal of this initiative. However,
I raise concerns with the process. In the appropriations bill funding
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), we do not earmark by disease
or provide any funds for specific private research organizations. We
believe that this should be determined by the scientists and
researchers who know what is ripe for funding. Echoing concerns raised
by Dr. Harold Varmus, Nobel Prize recipient for research and former
Director of NIH, I believe that explicit support for IAVI sets a
dangerous precedent for funding of medical research.
Finally, I remain concerned with the continued under funding in U.S.
foreign assistance. As I have said before, the U.S. is now the sole
superpower and world leader. Yet, we are not leading. As our role in
the world becomes more important, our budget for foreign operations
continues to lag behind our level of responsibility, thereby, limiting
the impact we can have on global development.
Again, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Alabama and his
staff for their hard work and ultimate success in bringing a free-
standing Foreign Operations Conference Report to the floor.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
on H.R. 4811, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs Appropriations Act for FY 2001. I'd like to thank Chairman
Callahan and Ranking Member Pelosi for once again including $13 million
in funding for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998.
The Tropical Forest Conservation Act expands President Bush's
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative and provides a creative market-
oriented approach to protect the world's most threatened tropical
forests on a sustained basis. It is a cost-effective way to respond to
the global crisis in tropical forests--since 1950, half of the world's
tropical forests have been lost. The groups that have the most
experience preserving tropical forests--including the Nature
Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and
others--agree with this approach, and the Administration strongly
supports it as well. It is an excellent example of the kind of
bipartisan approach we should have on environmental issues.
The Tropical Forest Conservation Act gives the President authority to
reduce or cancel U.S. AID and/or P.L. 480 debt owed by an eligible
country to the United States. In return, the country creates a fund in
its local currency to preserve, maintain, and restore its tropical
forests.
I am delighted that on September 12, 2000 the United States and
Bangladesh signed the first Tropical Forest Conservation Act agreement.
This agreement will allow Bangladesh to save $10 million in debt
payments to the U.S. over 18 years. In return, Bangladesh is setting
aside $8.5 million in its local currency to endow a Tropical Forest
Conservation Fund.
Bangladesh's tropical forests cover more than three million acres,
including an area that is home to 400 endangered Bengal tigers, the
world's largest single population. The area also contains one of the
largest mangrove forests in the world, and it has wetlands of
internationally-recognized importance. Bangladesh is home to more than
5,000 species of plants, compared to 18,000 in the United States, which
is 67 times its size. Clearly, the debt-for-forest arrangement with
Bangladesh will play an important role in preserving endangered species
and protecting biodiversity, as well as help that struggling nation's
economy.
On another front, our government is actively involved in debt
treatment discussions with the government of Belize, including a
possible debt swap option with non-government organizations. This is an
excellent example of a public-private partnership to protect tropical
forests.
Several other countries have expressed interest in participating in
Tropical Forest Conservation agreements including El Salvador, Peru,
Thailand, Paraguay, Ecuador, Indonesia, Costa Rica, and the
Philippines.
The Tropical Forest Conservation Act preserves and protects important
tropical forests worldwide in a fiscally responsible fashion, and I
call upon my colleagues to support the conference report which provides
the funds necessary to implement this important program.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4811, the
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Although this legislation
contains some important and worthwhile provisions, it unfortunately
contains more provisions that I oppose.
I applaud the appropriators and the administration for including
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt relief funding. For decades
many poor countries have been forced to spend large portions of their
income to pay down debts incurred in an attempt to restructure their
economies. In some cases this money was lost to fraud and abuse by
leaders in these countries. For other countries this money failed to
reform the economy. In other cases the money successfully transformed
the economy, but they have been unable to provide health services and
education because of the burdens of this debt. This initiative of debt
relief is a good first step in helping the poorest in our world begin
to receive the education and public health services they need by
reducing their country's debt burden.
This bill also includes no restrictions on international family
planning activities for non-profit organizations. I'm not sure why my
anti-abortion colleagues have allowed this bill to proceed, but I'm
thankful that this body has begun to realize that we cannot force our
own personal morality on other people. I hope that in the future this
body will continue on this path and support a woman's right to choose.
The funding for international HIV/AIDS programs and tuberculosis
control programs will also provide much needed relief to those
countries who are experiencing unprecedented outbreaks in these
diseases. Most of this suffering is occurring in Africa, where these
diseases threaten not only to kill millions of people, but also
threaten the very stability of these countries. By providing this
funding we will help alleviate the suffering of families around the
world.
Unfortunately, I have several objections to this bill. Primarily, the
continued American taxpayer subsidy of foreign militaries and U.S.
defense contractors. This bill contains over $3 billion in aid to a
handful of countries to purchase missiles, tanks, guns, attack
helicopters, and fighter planes. In a time of increased tension and
conflict this body should be working to reduce the number of guns in
this world rather than wasting taxpayer money increasing the killing
potential of foreign militaries.
Through this appropriation bill we also fail to protect human rights
by continuing to provide anti-narcotics funding to countries with well-
documented violations of human rights. It also does not include
requirements that the School of Americas include human rights training
in its course work. These failures will encourage human rights
violators to continue their actions.
Finally this bill includes an increase in the spending caps for this
year's budget. While Members on the other side of the aisle, claim to
be fiscally conservative, their actions continue to spend billions of
dollars that fail to protect future programs. If we approve this
increase my Republican colleagues will push to spend more money on
irresponsible tax cuts to benefit the wealthy and push through their
BBRA give-back bill which will provide billions of dollars to HMO's
which continue to drop seniors from their Medicare programs. This
spending will not benefit the majority of Americans while at the same
time kowtowing to the wealthy and special interests.
It is with these considerations that I vote against this
appropriations bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). All time has
expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
[[Page 24319]]
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and the nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the
conference report on H.R. 4811 will be followed by 5-minute votes on
each of the following motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas
and nays were ordered yesterday: H.R. 782, H.R. 5375, H. Con. Res. 426,
and S. 2547.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 307,
nays 101, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 546]
YEAS--307
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hastings (WA)
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Strickland
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--101
Aderholt
Archer
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Berry
Blunt
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cox
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Everett
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Manzullo
McDermott
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Norwood
Oberstar
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Rahall
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Shows
Smith (MI)
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Watkins
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
NOT VOTING--24
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Conyers
Danner
Delahunt
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
John
Klink
Largent
Lazio
McCollum
McGovern
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Peterson (PA)
Shadegg
Stupak
Talent
Wise
{time} 1358
Messrs. HERGER, McINNIS, CANADY, GOODLATTE and WHITFIELD changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted in favor of the Conference
Report to H.R. 4811, making appropriations for foreign operations,
export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. My vote should have been
recorded as a vote in opposition to the passage of the Conference
Report.
____________________
{time} 1400
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The unfinished
business is the question of suspending the rules and passing the bill,
H.R. 782, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 782, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405,
nays 2, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 547]
YEAS--405
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
[[Page 24320]]
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--2
Paul
Sanford
NOT VOTING--25
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Danner
Delahunt
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
John
Klink
Largent
Lazio
McCollum
McGovern
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Peterson (PA)
Shadegg
Stupak
Talent
Waxman
Wise
{time} 1409
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read:
``A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to extend
authorizations of appropriations for programs under the Act, to
modernize programs and services for older individuals, and for other
purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, because of urgent business in my
congressional district, I was unable to be present earlier today,
October 25, 2000, and I missed votes as a result. Had I been here, I
would have voted in support of the Conference Report on the FY 2001
Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill (H.R. 4811) and in support of
H.R. 782, the Older American Act Amendments, which would have been
recorded as ``yea'' on rollcall votes 546 and 547.
I applaud Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Pelosi for negotiating
a conference agreement that provides important funding for multilateral
debt relief, HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs and child
survival programs. While I would support greater funding for
development assistance for USAID bilateral programs that promote
sustainable development, poverty alleviation, universal education and
refugee and disaster assistance, I recognize that this bill is a
significant improvement over the original House-approved bill. I am
very glad to see that the so-called ``Mexico City'' restrictions on
international family planning programs have been removed from the bill.
I also commend the conferees for including strong conditions on our
military aid and relations with Indonesia because of the continuing
refugee crisis in West and East Timor and for maintaining the Section
907 conditions on U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan.
I am especially pleased that statutory language remains in this bill
requiring the President to direct all federal agencies to declassify
and release all relevant documents about the 1980 murders in El
Salvador of four American churchwomen. This is a matter on which I have
long labored, and I hope our government will make all documents and
other materials available to the families of these women before
December 2, 2000, which will observe the 20th Anniversary of their
deaths.
____________________
ERIE CANALWAY NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 5375, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 5375, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 183, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 548]
YEAS--223
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Pelosi
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--183
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
[[Page 24321]]
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--26
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Danner
Delahunt
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
John
Klink
Largent
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
McCollum
McGovern
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Peterson (PA)
Royce
Shadegg
Stupak
Talent
Waxman
Wise
{time} 1416
Mr. ROTHMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
CONCERNING VIOLENCE IN MIDDLE EAST
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The unfinished business is the
question of suspending the rules and agreeing to the concurrent
resolution, H. Con. Res. 426.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 426, on which the
yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 365,
nays 30, answered ``present'' 11, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 549]
YEAS--365
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--30
Bonior
Boucher
Clay
Clayton
Coburn
Conyers
Dingell
Edwards
Ford
Gilchrest
Goodling
Hilliard
Hostettler
Jackson (IL)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lee
Martinez
McKinney
Metcalf
Moran (VA)
Paul
Payne
Rahall
Rohrabacher
Sanford
Serrano
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Waters
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--11
DeFazio
Jones (OH)
LaHood
Lofgren
Rivers
Sanders
Sawyer
Snyder
Sununu
Thurman
Watt (NC)
NOT VOTING--26
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Danner
Delahunt
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
John
Klink
Largent
Lazio
McCollum
McGovern
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Peterson (PA)
Pickett
Royce
Shadegg
Stupak
Talent
Waxman
Wise
{time} 1426
Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``present'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table
____________________
[[Page 24322]]
GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE ACT OF 2000
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the Senate bill, S. 2547.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill, S. 2547, on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 366,
nays 34, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 550]
YEAS--366
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--34
Abercrombie
Berry
Boyd
Burton
Chabot
Coble
Coburn
Conyers
Cook
Cubin
DeMint
Duncan
Hansen
Hefley
Herger
Hostettler
Jones (NC)
Metcalf
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Paul
Pombo
Riley
Rohrabacher
Rush
Sabo
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Stearns
Stenholm
Tiahrt
Toomey
NOT VOTING--32
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Collins
Danner
Delahunt
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Horn
John
Klink
Largent
Lazio
McCollum
McGovern
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Peterson (PA)
Pickett
Royce
Shadegg
Stupak
Talent
Thompson (MS)
Waxman
Wise
{time} 1433
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed with amendments in which the
concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the
following title:
H.R. 4846. An act to establish the National Recording
Registry in the Library of Congress to maintain and preserve
sound recordings that are culturally, historically, or
aesthetically significant, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the
following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. 2772. An act to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 to enhance dairy markets through dairy product mandatory
reporting, and for other purposes.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS 115, 116, 117,
118, 119, AND 120, EACH MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 646 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 646
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115)
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
2001, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 116) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 117) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House
[[Page 24323]]
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) making further
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for
other purposes. The joint resolution shall be considered as
read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 5. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 119) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 120) making
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001,
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 646 is a closed rule providing for
consideration of House Joint Resolutions 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, and
120. Each of these joint resolutions makes further continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for a period of 1 day.
H. Res. 646 provides for 1 hour of debate on each joint resolution
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of these
joint resolutions. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit on
each joint resolution as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, the current continuing resolution expires at the end of
the day today and further continuing resolutions are necessary to keep
the government operating while Congress completes consideration of the
remaining appropriations bills. Because the President refuses to sign
any longer duration, the joint resolutions covered by this rule each
simply extend the provisions included in H.J. Res. 109 by one
additional day.
Mr. Speaker, after weeks of hard work, the House now just has three
appropriations conference reports left to pass. However, as we work to
reach agreement over the remaining appropriations bills, we will have
to take valuable time away from our negotiations each day to pass 1-day
continuing resolutions. President Clinton has threatened to veto any
continuing resolution of more than one day's duration, so each day we
must take the appropriators away from negotiations and bring them to
the floor to vote on these 1-day measures.
Mr. Speaker, if that is what the President wants, it is fine with me.
I will come to the floor every day to vote for a continuing resolution
to keep the government running. Like my Republican colleagues, I am
determined to pass fair and fiscally responsible appropriations bills.
We will stay here as long as it takes to do the people's business.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress is responsible for only two-thirds of the
appropriations process. The executive branch must also do its job to
move the appropriations process along. We would all like to complete
our business and go home, but our principles keep us here, and the
Republican majority is committed to putting people before politics and
passing appropriations bills that reflect the priorities of the
American people.
I hope that the President will join us in our good-faith efforts to
negotiate a fair, bipartisan solution to the disagreements still before
us. I am confident that the fair, clean, continuing resolutions covered
by this rule will give us the time we need to complete the
appropriations process in a thoughtful and judicious manner.
This rule was reported unanimously by the Committee on Rules
yesterday evening, and I urge my colleagues to support it so we may
proceed with general debate and consideration of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), my
colleague and my friend, for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of not 1, not
2, not 3, not 4, not 5, but 6 continuing resolutions. Each one ends on
a different day beginning tomorrow and going through Halloween. That
way my Republican colleagues can finish now or they can finish later.
With this rule, they have the continuing resolution they need to, no
matter when they finish, without having to get more rules on the
continuing resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the 13 appropriation bills were supposed to have been
passed and signed into law by October 1. Today only four appropriations
bills have been signed into law, Defense, Military Construction,
Interior and Transportation. There are 5 bills waiting at the White
House: VA-HUD, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, Treasury-Postal
and Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, so in order to keep the Federal Government open, despite
the unfinished business, we must keep passing these continuing
resolutions until the appropriation bills are finally signed into law.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the appropriations bills that are still
outstanding, Labor, Health and Human Services, Commerce Justice State,
Foreign Operations and the District of Columbia, are some of the most
controversial. So these bills are not going to be finished without a
fight, and that might take some time.
But my Republican colleagues continue to move slowly, and in the last
month, the Congress has been in session only a few days a week, and for
many of those days, we have been voting on very noncontroversial
suspension bills.
Instead of renaming post offices, my Republican colleagues should
have been passing real managed care reform. They should have passed the
prescription drug program within Medicare. They should have passed
campaign finance reform, gun safety legislation; but, Mr. Speaker, they
did not. And even Republican Senator McCain said, we are gridlocked by
the special interests.
Democrats, on the other hand, want to help working families. We want
to hire 100,000 new teachers. We want to build new schools and repair
the old ones.
We wanted to help school districts with school construction bonds. We
want to create after-school programs. But my Republican colleagues just
will not let us.
Mr. Speaker, even though my Republican colleagues balk at spending
money on education, they are increasing spending on other items faster
than ever before, even nondefense spending.
{time} 1445
And that increase in spending, Mr. Speaker, is very significant, even
if we account for inflation.
So I think it is time Congress enacted some bills for everyday
Americans. I think it is time we put education first. I think it is
time we finished the appropriation bills instead of stalling for
another week. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule providing for
the six continuing resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members it is
[[Page 24324]]
not in order in debate to refer to statements of Senators occurring
outside the Senate Chamber.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
only to offer myself first in line to nominate my friend from
Massachusetts as chairman of the national school board.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who are from the Midwest are familiar with
an insect called the cicada. Now, the cicada is a very fierce bug that
lays dormant for years, but at any given time, they seem to wake up
from their slumber, they make an incredible racket for a very brief
period of time, and then they are gone, they have vanished. Now, how
very much like this Republican Congress are the cicada. It is a
Congress that for 2 long years has been laying flat on its back and
only now is it rising to its feet to give its self-serving speeches.
Now, in the words of Washington Post's editorial, this is an un-
Congress. We have heard of the ``uncola.'' They have called this the
un-Congress. Quote: ``The un-Congress continues neither to work nor
adjourn. For 2 years, it has mainly pretended to deal with the issues
that it has systematically avoided,'' The Washington Post.
Now, is this because, Mr. Speaker, there is no work left to be done?
Granted, our country is in much better shape today than it was under
the last Republican President, but that does not mean that all of
America's problems have been solved.
Just consider education. We know that one of the toughest obstacles
to learning is the fact that too many kids are stuck in overcrowded,
undisciplined schools and classrooms, as the gentleman from
Massachusetts has just made clear. Overcrowding has gotten so bad that
in some schools it is at the point that classes have been held in
converted boiler rooms. We have even heard of roofs caving in on our
students. We should be doing something about that. We have a bill to do
something about that. In fact, there are Republicans that have
sponsored our bill to do something about that. We can pass the Rangel-
Johnson bill. We can have safer and modern schools and, by the way, at
the same time help cut the property taxes at the local level.
But, it seems the Republican leadership would rather complain about
public schools than join with us in helping to fix them. If their
leadership put as much time into crafting solutions as they do in
passing stopgap measures, we could have addressed this issue. We could
have passed the patients' bill of rights. We could have approved a
Medicare prescription drug plan under Medicare. We could have had hate
crimes legislation. We could have raised the minimum wage. All of these
major pieces lie dormant like the cicada after it raises a racket.
So maybe if we could have done these things we could have earned the
right to take some of those extra long weekends we have been enjoying.
But, Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for my colleagues on this side of the
aisle when I say that none of us ran for Congress because we came here
to complain about problems. We came here to help solve them.
If my Republican friends are not willing to roll up their sleeves to
stay here to face those four or five issues, to make sure we have the
education agenda in modern schools, in lower class sizes, in after-
school programs, if they are not willing to do that and they are not
willing to do raising the minimum wage and doing the prescription drug
benefit under Medicare and making HMOs accountable and passing campaign
finance reform, I suggest that they step aside in favor of those who
will.
So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule so that we can raise
these issues in a way that will allow us to have them before us so we
can have something to take back to the American people before this
Congress adjourns.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon reluctantly in support of the
continuing resolutions that we will be passing, but in opposition to
the rule. I would like to speak just briefly about the importance of
understanding the current state of our fiscal affairs.
It is important to understand that these measures that we will be
voting on are very small infinitesimal steps in a significantly larger
process. That larger process is one that has not been very well
explained to the American people. The American people understand or
expect that we are going to have a budget surplus and that we will be
paying down on the debt and that over the next 10 years, that payment
may be as much as $4 trillion. Well, the facts do not really square up
with that, and the action here today really gives us reason to pause.
I would like to start by just pointing out with respect to this chart
that we have had not a surplus, but indeed we have had an increase in
the debt over the last year. The dates here just are from June 30, 1999
to June 30, 2000. We can look and see that the debt went up by $40
billion. Now, compared to what it has been in some other years, this is
really cause to rejoice, but compared to where we think we are, it is
cause for pause, and it is cause to be much more sensible about where
we are going.
In this regard, I would like to emphasize that if we look at the
spending that has been occurring under the current leadership here in
Congress over the last several years, discretionary spending has been
going up at a rate of about 5.5 percent a year. And when we look at the
Social Security system which we should not even consider in calculating
our surplus, and we back out that amount, then we back out this
increase that has occurred and projected into the future, we will have
approximately $350 billion of surplus over the next 10 years.
Now, the point of this brief discussion is that we simply cannot
afford all of the things that our colleagues and the leadership have
been telling us we must do. For example, a $292 billion marriage tax
bill which was misguided, it was not in the budget, it came up before
we even passed a budget. This type of irresponsible legislation is what
is going to put us back into deficit spending, back into the Social
Security trust fund, and I urge my colleagues, as we consider these
continuing resolutions this afternoon, let us be realistic about where
we are going long term and let us make sure that we keep our eye on the
ball and the ball is to pay down on the national debt.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, rightfully so, the Chair admonished me for
using the name of a Senator. I meant to refer to our former House
colleague, John McCain, the former Presidential candidate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up where our colleague, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has left off and actually rise in opposition
to the rule which will give us a series of six 24-hour continuing
resolutions.
According to information, Mr. Speaker, compiled by the House
Committee on the Budget, the Republican leadership is in the process of
busting the spending cap of $600.3 billion that they set earlier this
year. Keep in mind that the Congress has not sent all 13 appropriations
bills to the President yet, but if the present trend continues, the
Republicans are on track to spend $620.5 billion, which means they will
have busted the spending caps that they set by over $20 billion. In
fact, on the nine bills that Congress has agreed upon, the Republican
leadership has agreed to spend over $11 billion more than the President
requested in his budget. Considering the House and Senate have not
[[Page 24325]]
even worked out the differences on three of the 13 appropriations
bills, including the huge Labor-HHS-Education bill, this number will
only get significantly larger.
The really sad thing is that, Mr. Speaker, all of this could have
been avoided. The Blue Dog Coalition worked very hard last spring to
develop a viable budget plan and reached out and offered to work with
the Republican leadership to reach a bipartisan agreement that would
receive widespread support on both sides of the aisle.
First, our plan would have locked up 100 percent of the Social
Security surplus for future retirees. It would have set aside 5 percent
of the non-Social Security surplus for debt reduction over the next 10
years; set aside 20 percent of the non-Social Security surplus for tax
cuts, and allowed Federal spending to grow at a rate of 2.5 percent
over last year. However, like last year, Mr. Speaker, the Republican
leadership was not interested in reaching a compromise. They enacted a
completely unrealistic budget that set spending caps on the 13 annual
appropriations bills at levels which assured those caps would be
ignored this fall.
The fact that Congress is now in the 4th week of a new fiscal year
with three of the 13 appropriations bills still not ready for the
President's signature, including one that the Senate has not even
considered, shows how unrealistic their budget was in March. Because
they do not have a sound budget plan, this Republican Congress is on
track to spend more money than any other Congress in history, with an
increase in non-Defense spending of 5.2 percent over last year. I
repeat, an increase in non-Defense spending of 5.2 percent over last
year. This is over twice the rate of spending growth proposed in the
Blue Dog budget.
This orgy of spending is a result of the poor budget decisions made
by the Republican leadership in March of this year. Instead of working
to develop a bipartisan budget plan with responsible tax and spending
priorities, instead of working to develop a bipartisan plan with
responsible priorities, we have passed a budget that made a nice
political statement to a faction within the party with virtually no
chance of being successfully implemented.
Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that we use back home: you reap
what you sow. When we sowed the seeds that grew into a budget back in
March, the Republican leadership rejected every offer of compromise
from the Blue Dog Coalition. Now it is fall and the crop has failed. We
are 24 days past the end of the fiscal year with the spending caps
destroyed, three appropriations bills left to pass, and no idea how
much more will be spent.
Mr. Speaker, this is fiscally irresponsible, and it is a direct
result of the failure of the Republican leadership to develop a sound
budget plan back in March.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Here we are 25 days after the end of the fiscal year, and we still do
not have all of the appropriations bills passed to keep the government
running. Frankly, that is no way to run a railroad. One would not run
one's business that way, one would not run one's household budget that
way, but here we are.
Some may say, what is wrong with it? Well, what happens when we get
in this predicament is exactly what we see playing out. The back room
deals end up being made out of the light of day and we end up spending
more money than this Congress should spend.
{time} 1500
My friends in the other party always talk about the Democrats as the
big spenders. I want to tell my colleagues those old fables just do not
work anymore.
The truth is this is the fourth year in a row that the Republican-
controlled Congress has passed appropriations bills with higher
discretionary spending outlays than the President requested. By
contrast, the Democratic-controlled Congresses of the Reagan and Bush
years more often than not appropriated less than the President
requested.
We all talk about this big budget surplus. The presidential
candidates are talking about it, how they want to spend it. The truth
of the matter is this Congress is frittering away that budget surplus.
It may not even be here if we continue along this path.
We talk about a $2.2 trillion on-budget surplus, but it is based on a
whole lot of iffy assumptions. If we continue increased spending at an
annual rate of 5.5 percent as this Congress has done since 1998, we
will wipe out two-thirds of that projected surplus.
Now, to put this in context, just a year ago, the Republicans in
Congress proposed cutting taxes a trillion dollars. Now, I am for
cutting taxes. But the truth of the matter is, if we had passed that
legislation, we would have wiped out the surplus, considering the
increase in spending that this Congress seems intent to do. The problem
that we face today is to pass a budget that preserves our surplus and
ensures our future prosperity.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to continue to talk a few minutes here about the
Nation's financial picture. But before I do, we are now 25 days into
the new fiscal year. Do my colleagues know how many days Congress has
met of those 25? We have sat for 12, only 12 of those days.
At the beginning of the fiscal year this year, on October 1, only two
of 13 appropriation bills had been completed and signed by the
President. Today only four, there are five more waiting, but we are
still three or four away from even having something to negotiate to
send to the President.
Now, if one ran one's business in that manner or if a physician
practiced medicine in that manner, I would suggest that a suit for
malpractice, legislative malpractice would apply. This is not the way
to conduct the Nation's business. It was done and the seeds were sown,
as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) said earlier, back in March
when a political statement was enacted called a budget that was
unrealistic and was never intended to be followed.
We are now in a situation where the Republicans say, well, we have to
stay in session here to keep President Clinton from demanding all of
this money to be spent. If we look at history, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner) just alluded to it, and the Blue Dogs went back and looked
at this when we compiled our budget, over the 12 years Reagan-Bush,
Bush-Quayle, the Democratic-controlled House at that time, part of that
time, of course the Republicans had the Senate, spent less than those
Presidents asked the Congress to spend.
For the last 4 years, the Republican Congress has spent more on
nondefense items than President Clinton has asked for. We now are in a
never-never land 25 days into a new fiscal year with no idea in sight
of how we wind up the business of the country for the previous fiscal
year. We are in a position where the surplus is a projection and the
spending is a fact.
Now, we are going to support a CR to keep the government open. But
this rule is a sham to get by for another 6 days, trying to keep this
ball in the air before the November 7 election day so that no one can
definitively and affirmatively state what this Congress did or did not
do. I have been here 12 years. This is as poor a way to run the
Nation's business as I have witnessed in those 12 years.
Yesterday or 2 days ago, we were not only not consulted, we are told
2 days ago there is a tax package out there, and the leadership is
going to brief the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the
chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate about what is in it.
We are supposed to be a legislative body. I tell my colleagues, the
country
[[Page 24326]]
needs to know that whatever may happen November 7, this situation is
not the way to conduct their business in a responsible manner.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying at home, the proof
of the pudding is in the eating. Well, take a good look at what we are
talking about today. We continue to hear a lot of rhetoric from the
other side of the aisle about Republicans standing up to big spending
demands of the President and Democrats in Congress.
Before my colleagues point fingers about big spenders, they should
take a good look in the mirror or better yet at the record. Eight of
the nine appropriation bills that Congress has passed so far this year
and sent to the President would spend more than the President has
requested.
The nine bills Congress has sent to the President would result in
$11.4 billion in outlays above the President's request. This is the
chart. According to estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, the
nine appropriation bills that this Congress, under Republican majority,
has sent to the President would spend $498.6 billion, $11.4 billion
more than the $487.1 billion requested by the President on those bills.
I do not know how my Republican colleagues can continue to honestly
explain that Democrats are big spenders for asking for $5 billion in
additional spending for education when they have already voted for
appropriation bills spending $11 billion more than the President has
requested.
According to one rather prominent Republican who has been a leader in
fighting against pork barrel spending, the nine appropriation bills
that Congress has sent to the President contain $21 billion in programs
and projects which he identified as low priority, unnecessary or
wasteful spending for programs and projects that have not been
appropriately reviewed in the normal merit-based prioritization process
of the Congress.
I do not understand how voting to increase spending by $21 billion on
programs that some have identified as pork is acceptable, but asking
for $5 billion more for education makes someone a big wasteful spender.
Everyone who voted for the rule on the Foreign Operations conference
report earlier today voted to increase total spending by $13.3 billion
in budget authority and $8.3 billion in outlays above the President.
Let me repeat that. If my colleagues voted for the rule on the Foreign
Operations bill, they voted to increase spending substantially above
the amount requested by the President. No Member who voted for that
rule can honestly continue to claim that the President is responsible
for increased spending.
According to the bipartisan Concord Coalition, if discretionary
spending continues to increase at the same rate it has over the last 3
years under Republican Congress for the next 10 years, nearly two-
thirds of the projected $2.3 billion on-budget surplus everybody has
been talking about will be wiped out.
I will again say to any of my colleagues on this side, if they wish
to challenge me on anything I am saying as to the accuracy and
authenticity of what I am saying, I will yield to them.
By contrast, discretionary spending increased by just 1.2 percent,
the rate of inflation, under Democratic Congresses after the budget was
created.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman's chart of the
President's request include the additional demands he is making upon
closing this process or only his original requests?
Mr. STENHOLM. The original requests, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. LINDER. Which does not include the coverage for fires in the
West, for example.
Mr. STENHOLM. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. LINDER. And did not include the coverage, the additional programs
and spending he asked for right now at the end of the process.
Mr. STENHOLM. The numbers in our chart represent the original
Republican requests, the original President's request, and the Blue Dog
request that we have begged and pleaded with those of you on the other
side to agree with us on numbers that we could stand together.
If we are so concerned about the President's request for spending,
why did my colleagues never at one time, their leadership, ever come to
the Blue Dogs and say we accept your numbers which is between the
President and you.
So the point of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is well taken
except I think my point still stands. We are spending more because my
colleagues have voted for it. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's
point he is making because it is a valid point and is one which more
people need to understand. But the finger pointing needs to stop. It
needs to stop.
The problem is not today with the Budget Act, as some would say. The
problem is with a leadership in this House that has made the budget
process irrelevant by proposing unrealistic budgets, refusing to work
in a bipartisan manner on a realistic budget that would have held down
spending to less than what the President has requested. That is the
problem.
As I said this morning, I have no quarrel with the Committee on
Appropriations, and I see the chairman here and the ranking member. I
have no problem here. Mine is with the process and the finger pointing
that has gotten into the political process, which it is ridiculous.
The problem is with the leadership of this House. We now absolutely
can show big spending originates in the House. Presidents do not spend
money. Congress spends money. We are in the minority. I am in the
minority. I am a part of the minority party. We cannot be responsible.
The majority has to assume that responsibility.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to inform
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and me how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 27\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
the time.
Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) just said
is exactly on point. My friend Archie the cockroach said once that what
happens to men or to mankind is not determined by the system that they
have. He says, what happens to mankind is determined by what they do
with whatever system they happen to have in hand. I think that is the
case with the budget resolution.
As the gentleman from Texas has said, the problem we are facing now
is not due to defects in the budget resolution, per se, although it
certainly has some giant ones. The problem is that the budget
resolutions have been used to deceive the American people about the
true intention of this Congress for over 10 months. They have been used
to deceive the American people about what is intended, what is
affordable, and what is doable under that resolution.
Because those resolutions have been so deceptive, that is what has
enabled the majority to pretend that there was enough room within their
spending caps to provide the tax package that they tried to pass over
the last 10 months. Most of the benefits in that tax package went to
those in this society who were already the most comfortable and the
most blessed.
Now we have the chickens coming home to roost time. We have just seen
the passage of a provision in the previous bill which admits that the
fiction that this Congress is going to spend only $600 billion this
year on discretionary spending was a giant public fib.
So now we have proceeded to pass a number of bills, and we are down
to
[[Page 24327]]
two of them. The main issue that divides us on those two remaining
appropriation bills is education. As the gentleman from Texas says, we
are now being told that, after this Congress has exceeded the
President's request on a number of those appropriation bills, after we
have seen large amounts of money, $19 billion above last year put into
the military budget, and, again, I find that amusing because the
majority party said that there was not enough in that budget for
readiness. Then they cut the readiness portion of the defense budget by
$1.4 billion, either 1.4 or 1.6, I have forgotten which, in order to
make room for congressional projects.
Now we are told, after we have done all of that, that there is not
room in the inn to meet the President's budget request on reduced class
size so that teachers are teaching classes rather than zoos.
{time} 1515
We are told there is not enough room in the inn to train teachers,
even though we are going to need well more than a million new teachers
because so many are close to retirement nationally.
We are told there is no room in the inn to have a significant school
modernization construction program. We have a $125 billion backlog in
the need for school reconstruction in this country. The President is
asking us to support a proposal that pays for less than 20 percent, and
we are being told by the majority there is no room in the inn.
Well, I have to tell my colleagues something. There is no room in the
schools, and we are going to have more than a million additional
children attending our public schools and we are not ready for that
challenge. We are not ready in terms of buildings, we are not ready in
terms of technology, we are not ready in terms of teacher training. One
out of every 10 teachers in this country is not qualified to teach the
subject that they are teaching. We are certainly not meeting our
responsibilities with respect to either Pell Grants so that we measure
up to our pretense that we are providing equal opportunity for people
to attend college, and we are certainly not meeting our obligations
with respect to special education. I believe we are only spending about
17 percent, or at the 17 percent level in terms of the requirements in
order to meet the mandates sent down by the Federal Government.
So now we are here having to pass these day-after-day CRs because the
majority refuses to meet our national needs in education, after we have
seen so much money poured into other bills. That is our problem. That
is what needs to change if we want to go home.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205,
nays 191, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 551]
YEAS--205
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--36
Bonilla
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Collins
Danner
Delahunt
Ehrlich
Engel
Franks (NJ)
Gephardt
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Klink
Largent
Lazio
Maloney (CT)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Mollohan
Peterson (PA)
Radanovich
Shadegg
Slaughter
Stabenow
Stupak
Talent
Waxman
Wise
{time} 1537
Messrs. MURTHA, FARR of California, and EDWARDS changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page 24328]]
Stated for:
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent and unable to vote. Had I
been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to suspend the
rules and pass H. Res. 646 (rollcall No. 551).
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.J. Res. 115 and that I may include tabular and
extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
____________________
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Pursuant to the rule just adopted, I call up
the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 115) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 115
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 106-275, is further amended by striking the date
specified in section 106(c) and inserting ``October 26,
2000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 646, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 115 is a continuing resolution, and it
continues the funding of our Government for one day until midnight
tomorrow night.
I am not sure that is the smartest way to go. I think that, with the
progress that we are making now, that we could probably be finished by
Friday or Saturday. I would have preferred to have introduced a
resolution to go to at least Saturday. However, the President of the
United States has told us that he would only sign CR's for one day at a
time. And, of course, that is his prerogative. He is the President and
he has the veto pen; and unless we have a two-thirds vote to override
him, he prevails. And so, he prevails in this case, and we have a 1-day
CR. If we do not finish our business tomorrow, we will have another 1-
day CR.
Where we are on the progress of our bills is, after having passed the
Foreign Operations appropriations conference report today, there are
only two outstanding conference reports, one of which we intend to file
tonight, that is the District of Columbia appropriations bill along
with the Commerce, State, Justice bill. And then the one remaining bill
is the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill, which we
hope to be able to file by tomorrow night and move to consideration of
it Friday or Saturday.
Then we will have completed our appropriations process. All this CR
does is extend the continuation of the Government from midnight tonight
to midnight tomorrow night.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say I want to thank the President of the
United States for insisting that this continuing resolution be for only
24 hours and that we operate with these 24-hour resolutions from now
on.
And the reason is simple. Most of the discussion right now is over
the fact that the Republican leadership refuses to move on the
Democratic education initiatives that include funding for school
modernization and also for more teachers and more money that goes back
to the local towns and school districts to hire more teachers. I just
want to say how important those initiatives are.
In the State of New Jersey, we rely mostly for our school funding on
local property taxes; and increasingly we find that the towns are
unable to afford more money for educational purposes. And so, what we
have is that the class sizes continue to rise; the school buildings, in
many cases, do not receive the necessary repairs; we have overcrowding
where we cannot even in a lot of the school districts build a new
school because we do not have the money.
So when the Democrats talk about an initiative that allows these
towns to have more money to hire teachers, to reduce class size, or to
pay for school modernization or for new schools, these are real
problems, these are real issues that affect people every day and affect
children in New Jersey and throughout the country every day.
{time} 1545
The bottom line is the Republican leadership talks about the need for
discipline in the classroom. How are we going to have discipline in the
classroom if we have a class that has 25, 30, or even 40 students? If
we give money back to the school districts to hire more teachers, they
can reduce the class size. I think the President's suggestion is down
to 18 students at the elementary level. That means better discipline in
the classroom, better learning opportunities for these kids in the
public schools.
And the same thing goes for the school modernization initiative. How
can they learn if they are in a building that is falling apart? I have
been to school districts in my district where the roof was collapsing.
Or in other situations where they have to have two shifts and kids go
to school starting at 7:00 in the morning to noon and then 12:00 noon
to 5 o'clock, or something like that.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are talking about something that is real
here. This is not pie in the sky. All we are saying is that we have the
money now, let us make it available for these towns, because it helps
with their property taxes. But most importantly, it helps with these
kids and their lives.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Am I
correct that if we passed the initiative that we have been hoping to
pass on making sure that we have more classrooms and more teachers to
bring class sizes down and have safe and clean, healthy schools to
teach in, am I correct that if a local subdivision did not want to have
more teachers, or did not want to do any school construction, that this
legislation would not force them to do anything? Am I correct?
Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, so it would be the local school board's
choice, the local citizens' choice whether or not to utilize these
resources.
Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, if I could say to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the money for both classroom size reduction and
for school construction has been included in the conference report
since July 27. It is fully available under title VI of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. Under this title the school district, if
it decides it does not need the money for school construction, can use
the money for other purposes like teacher training or equipping
classrooms with technology and computers.
So there should be no dispute about the money being available. The
dispute is about whether money is to be mandated by Washington to be
spent for a particular purpose, or whether the local school district
and the parents in that school district will decide the use for that
money. The money is there;
[[Page 24329]]
there has never been a dispute about the money. There is a dispute
about Washington control or about local decision-making. We favor local
decision-making.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman, as
he knows, and for all that he has done in his capacity as chairman of
the subcommittee. But I think there is a serious issue here about
whether the money really is available in the sense that what has been
proposed, from what I understand from the Republican leadership, is
that this is more in the nature of a block grant and it is not
necessarily the case the way the language is now that this money would
be available for these purposes.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman that the way it is structured, not only $1.3 billion would be
available for school construction, $2.7 billion would be available for
that purpose. Or the $2.7 billion would be available for classroom size
reduction. In other words, we are not straitjacketing the process; we
are giving flexibility so that the schools can decide their needs
themselves. That is the way it should be done, in my judgment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again yield, I think
there is a serious question about that and whether or not the money
would actually flow to the school districts. I understand the gentleman
disagrees.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter), chairman of the subcommittee, my friend; but I would
nonetheless like to set the record straight, because I view this issue
quite differently than does he.
He says that the argument is not about availability of money. He says
the argument is simply about whether or not we are going to have
Federal dictation to local school districts or whether they are going
to have some flexibility.
I would point out one simple fact: 93 percent of all of the money
that is spent by every school district in the country, on average, is
raised and spent in accordance with State and local wishes. That hardly
sounds to me like Federal dictation. It is true that what we are trying
to do on this side of the aisle is to assure that the other 7 percent
is focused on what we regard to be critical national priorities. One of
those priorities is school construction. Another is teacher training. A
third is class size.
We happen to believe that the research shows that children do a
better job of learning if the classes are small enough so that teachers
can have, from time to time, control of the classroom in which they are
teaching and have some close personal relationship with those students.
We also happen to believe that children do better if they are not in
schools that are falling down. There is a $125 billion backlog on
school construction in this country. The President is trying to fashion
a program which meets at least 20 percent of that need, and we make no
apology in trying to focus that 7 percent of Federal funds that we
provide on those items.
The third point I would make is simply this. With respect to class
size, lest anyone in this Chamber believe that there is not a large
degree of flexibility for local school districts, let me point out the
following: school districts now have flexibility to spend up to 25
percent of the funds on training, existing teachers, testing new
teachers, and providing high-quality professional development to ensure
that all teachers have the knowledge and schools to teach effectively.
So if school districts have already reached the class size target at
18, they are free to move a significant portion of their funds to
teacher training, as the majority demanded last year.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says that we here in
Washington know that reduced class sizes are better for kids to learn,
and we here in Washington know that kids should not have to go to
school in dilapidated classrooms. What makes the gentleman think that
the local school board does not know those same things? What makes him
think that we have to tell them how to spend their money?
It seems to me that the argument that since 93 percent of the money
is raised locally, we ought to be able to dictate how our 7 percent is
used simply goes against the genius of public education in our country.
The secret is not Washington control, it is local control. That is what
we have done for 200 years in America, and it seems to me that we can
trust them to make these decisions. They have made a lot of good
decisions.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, taking back my time, I would simply say the
gentleman has asked why is it that local school districts do not
recognize these same priorities. The fact is that they do, and that is
why they are asking us to pass these programs. Take a look and see
which educational organizations have supported these programs: the PTA,
right on down.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that the gentleman get some
time from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I would be happy to
continue this exchange, but I prefer that some of it be on his time.
But let me simply complete my thought. Directing that 7 percent of
the education money that is spent in this country be spent on national
priorities is not what I call running roughshod over local control.
What we are saying is they control 93 percent of the funds. Spend it
any way they want. But if they want us to use taxpayers' dollars at the
Federal level, we want them used for areas that we know by research
work, and in areas that have an extra problem.
We know that the average school in this country is 43 years old. Some
of them are so old we cannot even wire them anymore for modern
technology. We ought to be helping to change that, instead of
obstructing the efforts of the President to do something about it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter).
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) has just clearly defined our differences. We believe that
education decisions can be made at the local level, and we are willing
to give not the President's level of $1.3 billion, but $2.7 billion. If
local school districts want to use it for school construction, they
can. We believe that they can make these decisions without Washington
direction.
The flexibility that we believe in and the control that they believe
in clearly defines the differences between our two parties in this
area. That is the way it is. We understand it. We accept it. We think
that they are wrong; and obviously, they think that we are wrong.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have had this argument in our committee
before, and I ask the gentleman why then does he not believe that all
the education money that we appropriate in his bill should not be
simply block granted? Let me give a specific example.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what makes the gentleman
think that I do not believe that?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if he does, that is fine. Why does he not
propose that?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I will say to the
gentleman that we have made every effort, for example, to put money
into special education for disabled children. Now, that is an account
that is a Federal mandate. We know that that money has to be spent. The
more money that we put into that account, while it obviously helps that
situation
[[Page 24330]]
and that need, it also frees up other money that has had to be spent in
that account for other purposes and allows the local school district to
decide where those funds can best be used.
So, yes. Are we for more flexibility? Absolutely. That is what we
believe in.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I
understand his premise. We have, for instance, billions of dollars in
our bill for Head Start. Is it the gentleman's position that we ought
to make that flexible so that if a community locally decides that they
do not need a Head Start program in that community, they can use those
dollars for something else?
Mr. PORTER. That is not an education program. That is an HHS program.
It is a Federal program. It is not administered by the schools.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter), my distinguished friend and chairman of the subcommittee,
that in some instances he is correct. In Prince George's County, the
Head Start program is administered by the school system and they can
use Head Start money only for Head Start. They do not have the
flexibility, I tell my friend, to put that money in other places.
Now, why is that? Why is that? Because 435 of us have been elected by
the people of the United States to make policy, to make judgments, to
establish priorities. I have full respect for State legislators. I was
in the State legislature for 12 years, president of the Senate for my
last 4. I respect the members of the State Senate. I respect my county
council and my county executive.
But, Mr. Speaker, they were not elected to decide how we spend
Federal tax revenues. As a matter of fact, we had a revenue-sharing
program that most on that side of the aisle voted to repeal, as I
recall. This is in effect what the gentleman from Illinois is talking
about, a revenue-sharing program.
I believe, as the gentleman from New Jersey believes, that there is a
critical problem in America: A, there is a shortage of teachers; B,
there is a shortage of classrooms and we have crowded classrooms. Now,
it may not exist in every school system. So what I believe, and what
the President believes, is because we have identified a problem, the
gentleman is correct, it may not exist in every school system. We are
providing a program to respond to that problem.
Now, those who represent school districts that think that the
teacher-pupil ratio is perfect, that the school buildings do not need
rehabilitation, they do not need help with school bonding, then fine.
They do not have to take the money. But we have identified as Federal
legislators a need, and we are prepared to take the responsibility for
appropriating funds to solve that problem.
{time} 1600
That is where the gentleman and I disagree. He places it in a context
that I think is not the premise that I adopted. I am not for
controlling the local system. What I am for doing is establishing a
Federal policy which says that we need to have small classrooms so that
we can educate our children to be competitive in a world-class economy.
I think that is essentially what we are trying to do.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, we are doing exactly the same thing. The
money is there. In fact, more money is there for construction, for
classroom size reduction. We simply provide flexibility as to how that
money will be used.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not
correct. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, why you are not correct. What
you do is you take a sum of money and you distribute that by formula
pursuant to title VI to every school system in America that may or may
not have this particular problem that I think I have identified, my
constituents have identified; and what you have turned it into is a
revenue-sharing program to be disseminated. Some jurisdictions,
frankly, are going to get a paltry sum.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is the administration asked for $1.3 billion in
renovation funds. They asked for $1.75 billion for class size. You
merged that into a block grant. They asked for $3 billion. You gave
them $2.7 and block granted it.
We have seen from the way you use the community service block grants
and other programs that the first step on your side of the aisle is
always to block grant funds. Then, after you block granted it so you do
not have to take the heat for individual program cuts, then you cut the
guts out of them in the second and third years. That is what has
happened time and time again in social service programs, and we are not
going to fall for it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is one of the leading experts in this
Congress on the issue of education and funding for education.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my colleague from
Wisconsin that there was already $365 million in the education block
grant. The total for all activities including class size reduction and
school renovations is $3.1 billion. I would also say to my friend from
Maryland that his example of Head Start is an example of a federal
program that does not exist under the Department of Education. It may
be that school districts apply to the Department of Health and Human
Services or the State of Maryland. But clearly that is not an example
of what we are trying to do in providing greater flexibility in these
accounts.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend from Illinois, my point was,
A, that the money in Head Start is in our bill. I said in our bill. I
understand it is not in the education title because it is administered
under HHS. It happens to be run by the education department in my
county, and about one-quarter of the Head Start programs, as the
gentleman knows, in America are under the education departments. Three-
quarters are not.
My point was that the Head Start money is money that is identified
for a particular program. I tell my friend from Illinois that we made a
determination that children from at-risk homes needed a special start,
a head start. It is a program Ronald Reagan said worked.
We, therefore, at the Federal level made a determination that we were
going to, in our case, make billions of dollars available, but for this
purpose, because we have made, as a Federal legislative body, a
determination of a need.
My point to you, sir, is that I believe that we have made on our side
of the aisle a similar determination that there is a classroom shortage
in America, that there are crowded classrooms in America, and that we
have a teacher shortage in America as a result of having more students
in our schools than any time in our history.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I understand the gentleman from Maryland's discussion about a
specific Federal purpose like the Head Start Program or a specific
Federal purpose like school construction or a specific Federal purpose
like reducing the size of classrooms for teachers. But in this
particular instance, there are specific needs that this money can fill.
For example, in the school district in Somerset County, where
Crisfield students go to high school, there is no new construction that
is needed. There are no new teachers needed, because classroom sizes
are already small and getting smaller because the community is
[[Page 24331]]
reducing in size. What is desperately needed in that poor, lower shore
community, where salaries are very low, is some technology. So this
particular program as distributed across the country can help in school
class size, school construction, but in that community specifically
these dollars spent by the local school district can help in the arena
of enhancing those teachers, in training, technology, and computers.
Mr. OBEY. I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the Un-Congress, as ``The Washington Post'' now calls
us, will approve now its fifth continuing resolution, and with it the
Federal Government will stay open for an additional 24 hours.
Mr. Speaker, I will support, of course, this resolution, and I urge
my colleagues to do the same. It finally focuses on doing work. For as
every one of us knew when we approved the fourth continuing resolution
just 6 days ago, not much was going to be done in the 5 days that we
lost. We knew it would take a measure such as this.
As ``The Washington Post'' again stated, ``The un-Congress continues
neither to work nor to adjourn. For 2 years, it has mainly pretended to
deal with issues that it has systematically avoided.''
This Congress has avoided a real patients' bill of rights, it has
avoided a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit, it has avoided
campaign finance reform, and now, of course, it seeks to avoid, I tell
my friend from Maryland, the Democratic initiatives on class size
reduction and school modernization.
It seeks instead to simply parcel out very small sums of money to
everybody in America, and perhaps solve no problem, because the monies
that everybody will receive will be too small to accomplish any one
objective.
The mother of all budget train wrecks, those irresponsible and
decisive government shutdowns in 1995, Mr. Speaker, has morphed this
year into the eerily quiet derailment. After 6 years of Republican
leadership, our budget process is in a shambles. It is unnecessarily
contentious, it is often disingenuous. And I want to make it clear, as
I have made it clear on each one of the four previous continuing
resolutions, this is not the fault of the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), a distinguished, able, effective and very honest chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations, who does this institution credit in
his leadership.
I believe it has contributed to the growing cynicism in our country
towards the legislative process. While our budget debate need not
degenerate into intransigence, the GOP's approach, in my opinion, over
the last 6 years has made such an outcome inevitable.
The majority has adopted unrealistic budget resolutions in each of
the last 3 years. That is why we are here today, because the budget
resolution was unreasonable. And guess what we did just a few hours
ago? We changed the budget caps. Why? Because they were not working.
In some years, including this one, House and Senate Republicans have
been unable to reach agreement even among themselves, Mr. Speaker, as
you know, and, although I do not want to put words in your mouth, I am
sure you lament as well.
Just 2 years ago, Congress failed to enact a budget for the first
time in 24 years, since the adoption of the 1974 Budget Act. And I will
say to my friends on the majority side of the aisle, that budget could
have been adopted without a single Democratic vote. It was not. Both
Houses are controlled by the majority party, and they did not adopt a
budget.
Republicans have loaded up spending bills with legislative riders
that, frankly, have no place on appropriation bills. As Chairman Young
said recently, ``the thing that is holding us up are the non-
appropriation issues that should have been taken care of in authorizing
committees.''
Finally, Republicans have proposed spending cuts that even ardent
conservatives could not long have lived with. My good friend the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of our
Committee on the Budget, how quickly they forget, released a report on
Monday that debunks the myth of big spending Democrats. I want to have
my majority party friends hear this. In fact, domestic appropriations
have risen faster when the House is controlled by Republicans.
I will just let that sink in a while, because it is contrary, of
course, to what you argue out on the hustings.
So while I urge my colleagues to vote for this continuing resolution,
Mr. Speaker, and to complete this year's budget, I lament the fact that
again we are hung up at the end of a session because of our
unwillingness in the majority to confront the educational needs of
America's children and America's families.
We have been discussing the difference, and the difference is the
identification of a critical need in America, that of more classrooms.
Why? Because we have more children in school than at any time in our
history. And we know that we have a teacher shortage, a quality teacher
shortage; and what we seek to do is expand upon the availability of
classrooms and of teachers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the majority party to take a hard look at our
process. No reasonable person, in my view, can conclude that this is
the way this great institution ought to be run. Even Senator Phil Gramm
commented in the morning's Post, ``I think the budget process has been
destroyed; and I think, unfortunately, Republicans have been heavily
numbered among the assassins.'' So said Phil Gramm.
Mr. Speaker, we can and should do better. Let us come to agreement on
providing more classrooms and more teachers for our children.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind Members
that it is not in order in debate to refer to statements of Senators
occurring outside the Senate Chamber.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, as good a friendship as I have with
my friend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I would strongly
disagree with the statement that he made that the Republican majority
has not done well for education. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) pointed out very effectively that we have actually provided
more funding this year alone than the President asked for. The only
difference is the great debate over who is going to control the funds,
who is going to make the decision on what the needs are, back in my
congressional district or in his congressional district, a bureaucrat
in Washington, or the locally elected school board back home in our
districts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats controlled this House for
40 years, and what have we ended up with? This Nation, with all its
resources, last in math and science of all the industrialized nations;
last in literacy. Our schools are crumbling, and they need help. But
what have they done? They have catered to the trial lawyers and the
unions to rip off our school system. And I want to be specific.
They talk about school construction. Waive Davis-Bacon. It costs
between 15 to 35 percent, depending on what State, to build schools,
because Federal dollars have to fall under the prevailing wage. They
say, well, we want a living wage. Ninety percent of all the
construction in this country are nonunion, and they earn a living wage.
And, guess what? Minority contractors have a good chance at the jobs,
where they do not with the unions.
We can build schools. Let us not take that money away from the
schools. Let us let the schools keep it. Do they want more
construction, do they want teacher training, or whatever? But my
colleagues on the other side, because they get most of their campaign
money
[[Page 24332]]
out of the unions, will not cross the unions.
Secondly, my colleague from Wisconsin says that 93 percent of the
money is controlled by State and local, and 7 percent Federal.
{time} 1615
That is the way it is supposed to work. Just look at IDEA and special
education. Look at the requirements in the D.C. bill; we capped the
amount that liberal trial lawyers could take out of special education,
Alan Bernstein's number one problem in San Diego, the superintendent of
schools.
But yet my colleagues wanted to pay off for the liberal trial lawyers
and oppose it. Luckily, the Senate saw through in the conference. Guess
what? The city was able to hire 123 special-needs teachers. Democrats
wanted to control it. We said no, let the local district do it.
When I was chairman of the authorization committee, 16 programs came
forward from different areas. Every one of them had the absolute best
program in the world. And after the hearing, I said, which one of you
have any one of the other 15 in your district? None of them. That is
the whole point.
We want to give it directly to the schools so that the teachers, the
parents, and the local administrators can make those decisions. My
colleagues want Federal control of everything.
Another good example was Goals 2000. There are 14 ``wills'' in that
bill, which means you will do it. They say it is voluntary. Well, it is
only voluntary if you want the money. One of those wills you had to
establish another board to see if you comply with Goals 2000. It then
went to your school board. It then went to the principal; it then went
to the superintendent.
Think about it, all the schools in California sending all of that
paperwork to Sacramento and the bureaucracy it takes. Then where did it
go? It came back here to the Department of Education.
Think of all the schools in the United States sending all of that
paperwork and bureaucracy and, of course, there was paperwork going
back. That is why we only get 48 cents out of a dollar to the
classroom.
That is what my colleagues on the other side want to continue to do
is have government control of education. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a
difference, in the two parties.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
for his sacrifices in trying to work through the difficult details of
the bill.
If my colleagues listened to the last several speakers who came
before us, claiming this is a do-nothing Congress, as if all of this
slow-down of bill passage is our fault, well, if my colleagues listened
to the other side of the aisle, this Chamber and this government would
be financially insolvent if they had their way.
No rhyme or reason, no restrictions on spending. Our projects, our
way or the highway. I voted for Patients' Bill of Rights. I have voted
for hate crimes. I voted for a number of issues that are not considered
traditional Republican issues, but I have yet to see my colleagues on
the Democratic side of the aisle want to come to conclusion on any of
those bills.
Minimum wage, let us not pass it, let us just use it for campaign
issue; and then they come down to the floor here today, and assume some
way, we, as the Republican majority, are holding up the will of the
people.
Mr. Speaker, I personally believe we are exemplifying the will of the
people by trying to bring some restraint and establish priorities and
focus Federal resources.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, despite the stump
speeches, domestic spending has risen at the behest of the Republican
leadership. Amen to that. We are finally putting our money in domestic
accounts for the people of the United States who are the taxpayers. No
longer are we willing to waste away money on international expeditions,
finding ways to send money to every nation that never votes with us at
the U.N. treaties or any other instances.
Again, I hope that the Members of this Congress will applaud and
appreciate the hard work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and
I hope they will come together and end the rhetoric.
Yes, it is almost election day; and we know we are all tense and
ready to leave, but our government is better for the debate and the
negotiations that have occurred. If the President is willing to
negotiate with us on some of these final outstanding issues, we will be
gone. Do not look to us and blame us for all of this slow-down.
I think a lot of it is occurring on the other side of the aisle, and
they should take equal credit.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think to understand our concern about today people
need to understand what the record was yesterday. And if my colleagues
take a look at what our Republican friends in the majority have tried
to do on education since the day that they took over control of this
Chamber 6 years ago, my colleagues will see the following:
Over that 6-year period, they tried to cut the President's budget
request for education by a total of over $13 billion.
They shut down the government twice to try to force the President to
buy their priorities which included the elimination of the Department
of Education.
They will claim, well, you are just talking about cuts in the
increase, you are not talking about cuts in actual spending levels.
I have two responses to that. First of all, we will have a million
more children in our schools, and so any budget that does not provide
increases for education each year, in fact, results in less dollars
being spent on every child each year, and that is not a way to promote
educational quality.
My second point is that even if you only measure the cuts, which our
Republican friends tried to make in preexisting spending levels, you
will find that they, on four occasions in the last 6 years, they tried
to cut education spending below the amount that was being spent at the
time to the tune of more than $5.5 billion.
After we went through all of the arguments, we wound up, because of
pressure from the White House and pressure from the Democratic side of
the aisle, we wound up restoring some $15.5 billion to those education
budgets. That is the track record.
I was amused when I saw the Republican leadership yesterday in a
media event brag about the fact that they should be trusted on
education, because they had increased spending on education by over 50
percent since they had taken control of the House. That is true, but
only after you shut down the government twice to try to avoid doing
that, only after you tried to cut $5.5 billion below existing spending
levels.
The only reason that spending for education has risen by 50 percent
over the last 6 years is because we made you do it. I find it ironic
that you are now taking credit for the fact that you were beaten in
previous years. That is an interesting trick, but the numbers that I am
giving you happen to be true.
Mr. Speaker, the record will bear them out.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following three charts
demonstrating what I have just said:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION CUTS BELOW PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Percent
Fiscal year Request level House cut cut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Labor-HHS--Education....... 25,804 20,797 -5,007 -19
1997 Labor-HHS--Education....... 25,561 22,756 -2,805 -11
1998 Labor-HHS--Education....... 29,522 29,331 -191 -1
1999 Labor-HHS--Education....... 31,185 30,523 -662 -2
2000 Labor-HHS--Education....... 34,712 33,321 -1,391 -4
2001 Labor-HHS--Education....... 40,095 37,142 -2,953 -7
---------------------------------------
Total FY 96 to FY 01........ 186,879 173,870 -13,009 -7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Discretionary Funding--Minority Staff, House Appropriations
Committee.
[[Page 24333]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--GOP EDUCATION APPROPRIATION CUTS COMPARED TO
PREVIOUS YEAR
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior House House
Fiscal year year level cut
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 Rescission............................. 25,074 23,440 -1,635
1996 Labor-HHS--Education................... 25,074 20,797 -4,277
1997 Labor-HHS--Education................... 22,810 22,756 -54
2000 Labor-HHS--Education................... 33,520 33,321 -199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Discretionary Funding--Minority Staff, House Appropriations
Committee.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--EDUCATION FUNDING RESTORED BY DEMOCRATS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Conf Percent
Fiscal year level agreement Restoration increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 Rescission............. 23,440 24,497 1,057 5
1996 Labor-HHS--Education... 20,797 22,810 2,013 10
1997 Labor-HHS--Education... 22,756 26,324 3,568 16
1998 Labor-HHS--Education... 29,331 29,741 410 1
1999 Labor-HHS--Education... 30,523 33,149 2,626 9
2000 Labor-HHS--Education... 33,321 35,703 2,382 7
2001 Labor-HHS--Education... 37,142 40,751 3,609 10
-------------------------------------------
Total FY 95 to FY 01.... 197,310 212,975 15,665 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Discretionary Funding--Minority Staff, House Appropriations
Committee.
Now, we are down to the last days of this Congress, I hope, and we
have essentially two issues remaining, one involves what are we going
to do with the issues of class size and teacher training and Pell
grants and special education. Are we going to meet our responsibilities
there?
We have seen billions of dollars go into other appropriations bills.
Now we are told, oh, you have to be tight on this one. So that is one
education issue remaining.
The other issue is whether or not we are going to sufficiently
respond to the President's request on school construction.
What has been missing from this debate so far on that side of the
aisle is the recognition that there are two construction pieces which
the administration is trying to achieve. The first is the small $1.3
billion renovation package which we are trying to get in the Labor,
Health Education appropriation bill, and the second is the bonding
assistance that the administration is trying to get, either by running
it through this bill or by running it through the Committee on Ways and
Means, the bonding authority which they are trying to get so that they
can help by the expenditure of $2.5 billion of Federal money over a
multiyear period so that they can leverage the construction of $25
billion in additional new school facilities, modern school facilities.
As I said before, to put that in context, the demonstrated need for
the country is $125 billion. So that basically is what we find at issue
on education as we try to reach agreement.
We are here because we have seen the succession of week-long
continuing resolutions, and as a result of that, the Congress has moved
along in a leisurely fashion, most Members being able to go home 5 days
a week; the negotiators on the Committee on Appropriations being stuck
here most of the time around the clock, 7 days a week.
Mr. Speaker, I have been home to my district exactly 2 days since
Labor Day, and that is why I have told people I feel like a fugitive on
a chain gang.
I would hope that we will be able to reach closure on these issues.
Until we do, we have no choice but to approve the continuing resolution
before us, but I would urge in the meantime that we have additional
flexibility on the majority side when it comes to the school
construction issue, because that, in my view, is the issue that has to
be resolved before we are going to be able to put together the rest of
the pieces on education and get out of here in time to at least say
hello to the constituents that we all thought we would be greeting and
meeting with and talking with for the last 3 weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I had been prepared to just yield back my time early on
during this debate, because the issue before us is simply a 1-day
extension of the continuing resolution, but so many things have been
developed during this debate that I feel tempted to respond to each and
every one of them, but I am not going to do that. But I feel tempted.
I understand the position of the minority. I served in the minority
for a lot of years, as did many of my colleagues on this side of the
aisle. We were not all here for 40 years, but for those who have been
here nearly that long, we served in the minority almost the whole time
we have been here, so we understand the frustrations.
But when we became the majority party and I became chairman of one of
our subcommittees on appropriations, I was determined that the minority
would have access to every bit of information, would have the
opportunity to have input on every subject coming before that
subcommittee, and I think any member of that subcommittee on either
side would concede that and confirm the fact that that is how we
function.
When I became chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, one of the
first instructions I laid down to the Members and the staff that the
minority would be included in all of our deliberations, and I believe
they would admit to that at the staff level and the Member level.
We have met with each other off and on most of the year, and then as
we got toward the end of the process, we began meeting with the
President's representatives, and both parties were involved in all of
those meetings. Even at that we understand the frustration of the
minority.
We tried to be as responsible as we could and as generous as we could
in trying to reach consensus and trying to reach bipartisan agreements.
{time} 1630
And we have reached a lot of bipartisan agreements. But there is a
lot of political rhetoric occurring now, because we are rapidly
approaching Election Day.
One of the things that got my attention was the gentleman from
Wisconsin's statement that the Republicans shut down the government.
Well, that conclusion is the result of masterful and effective spin-
mastering. The Republicans did not shut down the government; the
Republicans passed the appropriations bills, they sent them to the
Clinton-Gore administration, they vetoed them, and when they vetoed
them, the government shut down for a couple of days. The Republicans
sent the appropriations bills to the President. We did our job. He
vetoed them. Until we were able to come back and rewrite the bills, the
government was closed for a short period of time.
Now, there are two major issues that have been developed here today.
There are those who spoke and complained that the budget really was not
high enough, that we were not doing enough spending. I say to those
people who believe that, they are true to their conviction. They really
believe that there should be more government spending, that there
should be more government involvement. And while I might disagree with
them, I do not question their sincerity, and I do not question their
motivation for standing for what they believe.
But there are others who say, well, we are spending too much. Mr.
Speaker, my colleagues will remember, as I remember, that all through
this appropriations process we spent hour after hour, day after day,
week after week on appropriations bills dealing with amendments from
the minority side to increase spending, to increase the amount of money
in those appropriations bills. Yet some of the people, not all, but
some of the Members on that side who voted for all of those amendments
now complain that we are spending too much money. We really cannot have
it both ways. We cannot vote for every amendment to increase and vote
against any amendment that would reduce and still stand up and say,
with a clear conscience, we spent too much money.
There is another reason that it has taken some time to conclude this
process. This is because we have included all sides, Republicans and
Democrats in the House and in the Senate, and the White House. There is
also another reason. We had a few years ago a real disaster, in my
opinion. Under our watch, we had an omnibus bill that included about
eight appropriations bills. We put all of those eight bills together,
and the leadership sat down with the
[[Page 24334]]
White House and we negotiated them. We came out with an omnibus
appropriations bill. I do not think many people today still know what
was in that bill.
We have not done that this year. We have resisted that. We have gone
one bill at a time. The House has had an ample opportunity to deal with
every bill specifically and independently, and we passed all 13 of our
bills through the House early in the process. Now, we slowed down a
little when the other body did not get around to taking up some of
their bills; but nevertheless, we found a way to deal with that, and we
attached one of the bills they had not passed to one of the bills that
we had passed. And probably tomorrow, we will do the same thing again.
Mr. Speaker, there is no omnibus appropriations bill being developed
this year. We in the House have dealt with each and every one of the
bills. That takes a little time, because instead of having one large
negotiation taking place, we had 13 small negotiations that, by the
way, all developed into pretty big ones. So it took a little more time.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we are not here to campaign. The political
rhetoric that we hear from time to time on the floor, especially on
appropriations bills, is not what we are here for. We are here to do
the people's business. The campaigning should be on the campaign trail.
I listened to the minority leader last week make what I thought was an
excellent speech where he appealed to us and said, let us work
together, let us be bipartisan, let us do the best we can to get our
job done for what is best for the American people. I liked that speech
and I complimented him right after he made the speech on the floor, in
public. But then so much campaign rhetoric followed. I know that he was
sincere, but I just believe that some of the people on his side were
not listening to his appeal.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to deal with a 1-day continuing resolution.
I just ask that the Members vote for this CR so we can get about the
rest of our business today and the rest of the week.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 646, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395,
nays 9, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 552]
YEAS--395
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--9
Baird
Barton
Capuano
Costello
DeFazio
Ford
Kaptur
Miller, George
Visclosky
NOT VOTING--28
Bonilla
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Collins
Combest
Danner
Delahunt
Engel
Fossella
Franks (NJ)
Greenwood
Hastings (FL)
Klink
Largent
Lazio
Maloney (CT)
McCollum
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Owens
Peterson (PA)
Shadegg
Slaughter
Stupak
Talent
Waxman
Wise
{time} 1656
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
[[Page 24335]]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and could not vote
on rollcalls Nos. 544 through 552. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea'' for each of these measures.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 835, ESTUARIES AND CLEAN WATERS ACT OF 2000
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 648 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 648
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (S. 835) to encourage the restoration of estuary habitat
through more efficient project financing and enhanced
coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration programs,
and for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley), my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules;
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
{time} 1700
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 648 provides for consideration of the conference
report to accompany S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000.
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and
against its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference
report shall be considered as read. This is a standard rule for this
type of conference report. And I believe it is totally without
controversy. I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
Before we get a chance to vote, Mr. Speaker, S. 835 is an excellent
piece of environmental legislation and yet another addition to the fine
environmental legacy of the 106th Congress. S. 835 encourages
partnerships between Federal, State, and local interests for estuary
habitat restoration. Of even greater importance is that the bill
supports the development and implementation of comprehensive management
plans for the National Estuary Program. This is of particular
importance to me because of the Charlotte Harbor NEP, which is located
in my district in southwest Florida. I worked hard with our local
community to secure the NEP designation for Charlotte Harbor, and I am
pleased this legislation will ensure a comprehensive management plan
goes forward from the process.
Another key issue for my home State of Florida is title VI of the
bill, which authorizes a pilot program to allow States to explore
alternate water supply solutions to meet critical needs. We have always
had water wars in Florida, but given the increase in population and the
attendant demand for water, we will surely reach a crisis point unless
we take immediate action now. The alternate water source provisions in
this bill will help in that effort, and I want to thank my colleague
and good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), for her
hard work in particular on this issue.
S. 835 also includes other critical restoration efforts for areas
such as Lake Pontchartrain and the Tijuana River Valley. I am extremely
disappointed to note the Senate refused to accept a provision passed by
the House that would have established an EPA grant program to improve
water quality in the Florida Keys. I am not aware of any substantive
problem on this issue, and I remain hopeful we can adopt this program
perhaps through another legislative vehicle.
Even so, this bill is a remarkable piece of legislation, and I
commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and his Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work in the area
and the successful result. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule,
it is a good bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support both.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, my dear friend from
Florida (Mr. Goss), for yielding me the customary time; and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the bipartisan
conference report. America's estuaries are in trouble. According to the
national water quality inventory, 44 percent of our estuaries are not
meeting their designated uses, whether they are fishing, swimming, or
supporting aquatic life. This bill attempts to do something about that
by authorizing $275 million over the next 5 years to help the Corps of
Engineers restore estuary habitats.
These funds will be available, Mr. Speaker, for projects to improve
degraded estuaries and estuary habitats and get them to the point that
they are self-sufficient ecosystems.
Mr. Speaker, estuaries are areas where the current of a river meets
the tide of the sea; and because such a wide variety of life thrives
there, they are the beginning of the food chain. Estuaries provide the
nursing grounds for fisheries, support numerous endangered and
threatened species, and host almost half of the migratory birds in the
United States.
But, Mr. Speaker, estuaries are very fragile and are suffering from
increasing human and environmental pressures. In response to those
pressures, this bill includes a number of individual bills that passed
the House overwhelmingly. The conference report passed the Senate by
unanimous consent and is supported by State and local governments and
the business community and the entire environmental community. I urge
my colleagues to support this rule and this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time, the honorable
dean of the Massachusetts delegation; and I wish to thank my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle for their support of this rule that makes in
order this very important piece of legislation, the Estuary Habitat
Restoration Improvement Act.
For those of my colleagues who are familiar with my State of Rhode
Island, we are practically one big estuary. The Narragansett Bay runs
right through my State. It is a very important part of our whole
economy; and so, therefore, this bill represents an important step
forward for our State and also for our Nation in preserving these
fragile estuaries.
My State, as my colleagues know, has had a long history of trying to
work to preserve its Narragansett Bay. It goes to the importance of
fishing in our State, sailing, swimming, and our number one industry,
the tourism economy. Of course this has a major impact on our tourism
economy. So for all of these reasons, this Habitat and Estuary
Restoration Act is very important for our State's economy.
It is not only the case in Rhode Island but it is also the case
nationally that our waters have not always been treated with the
respect and care that they deserve. Estuaries are very valuable
ecosystems in our overall environment. They nourish a wide variety of
animal and plant life, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) pointed out. They also serve to help filtrate pollution that
comes in in the form of so much runoff from farms, to oil spills, to
wastewater overflow. Estuaries help in that very important part of
preserving this environment by acting as a buffer.
Recently, I read an article in our own newspaper, the Providence
Journal, where Curt Spalding, our executive director of Save the Bay in
Rhode Island, said that we in Rhode Island have lost over half of our
salt marshes in our State. Over 1,000 acres of eelgrass, for example,
in our State, that we once possessed, only about 1/100th of that still
remains, depriving countless marine life from its ability to find a
source of primary food. And he writes that the damming of these rivers
and streams has had a totally detrimental impact on countless fish
habitat as well as other marine life.
So without immediate action on legislation such as this, we might
pass the
[[Page 24336]]
point of no return, and that is why acting on this legislation right
away is so very important. That is why I urge my colleagues to pass
this Estuary Habitat Restoration Act, making the provision of $275
million funding for local projects that will incent the saving of our
estuaries. I urge all of my colleagues to support this very valuable
and important piece of legislation to all of our coastal ways, and
especially to our coastal ways in the Northeast, like my State of Rhode
Island.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill,
especially because it contains some very strong protection and
preservation measures for the Long Island Sound.
I also wish good luck to the New York Mets, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 835, the Estuary
Habitat Restoration and Improvement Act Conference Report. This measure
authorizes $1.6 billion over five years for various estuary
conservation and restoration activities, including the Long Island
Sound.
Preservation of the Long Island Sound is not a parochial issue, but a
national one. By its inclusion as a charter member in the National
Estuaries Program, the Sound has been designated as one of only 28
estuaries of national significance. Congress recognized the national
importance of the Sound by creating the Long Island Sound Study (LISS),
which involved Federal, state, and local entities as well as private
groups. The result of this study was the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP). This report has detailed the many challenges
which Long Island Sound faces including floating garbage, biological
contamination, and industrial waste--in short, all the things which
plague our modern society.
The time to act is now. The $200 million over 5 years which is
authorized under this agreement, will be used to provide grants to
implement remedial efforts to clean up the Long Island Sound as part of
the CCMP.
I am proud to represent an area that borders the Long Island Sound.
The Sound is one of our nation's natural treasures with important
environmental, recreational, and commercial benefits. Its value as an
essential habitat for one of the most diverse ecosystems of the
Northeast cannot be understated. Residents and vacationers alike enjoy
the Sound for swimming and boating. And the approximately $5 billion in
revenue generated by commerce relating to the Sound is vital to the
region and to individuals who base their livelihood on the benefits of
the Sound.
Unfortunately, the effects of millions of people on the shore and in
the Sound are evidenced in the deteriorated water quality. Over the
last several years, Long Island Sound has suffered from numerous forms
of pollution. This pollution is now threatening the Sound's
multibillion dollar a year fishing industry. The most recent and
devastating example is the unexplained and widespread lobster die-off.
We must supply adequate resources to address this lobster die-off and
to examine possible problems in the water that could have caused this
crisis. I am confident that this legislation will have a significant
impact on the ongoing efforts to improve the quality of the Sound.
For the past seven years I have sponsored legislation to provide
funding for clean up and pollution control programs for the Long Island
Sound. I am very pleased that today we see legislation that will
protect our beautiful Long Island Sound, along with other important
bodies of water in our nation. I would like to thank Mr. Shuster and
Mr. Oberstar for their leadership on this legislation and their
commitment to preserving our national estuaries. I would also like to
acknowledge the hard work and dedication of my colleagues who represent
areas along Long Island Sound. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join
with me today in supporting this conference report.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from New York also
endorsed the rule, at least I hope he did. I did not hear any
controversy on the rule.
I think this is yet another accomplishment of the do-something 106th
Congress. I see nothing except a good debate ahead and a strong
approval.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague on the rule as well as
the bill.
Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished
friend, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 648, I call up
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 835) to encourage the
restoration of estuary habitat through more efficient project financing
and enhanced coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration
programs, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 648, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
October 24, 2000, at page H10537.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation, this conference report, includes
several bills which have already passed the House. It includes the
Estuaries Restoration Act authored by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest); it includes the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act, which was
guided through the House by our late colleague, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bateman); it includes the bill of the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton) to reauthorize the National Estuary Program; the
bill of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the Long Island Sound Restoration
Act; it includes the bill of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter)
and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act; the Alternate Water Sources Act
authored by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler); the bill of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Sweeney) to reauthorize the Clean Lakes Program; and the
Tijuana River Valley Estuary and Beach Sewage Cleanup Act of 2000,
authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
This legislation meets environmental restoration needs by encouraging
cooperative efforts at the local, state and Federal levels and
fostering public-private partnerships to identify and address water
quality problems. I would like to assure my colleagues that this
legislation does not create any new regulatory authorities and requires
full public participation. In particular, the estuary habitat
restoration strategy to be developed under section 106 of the act must
be developed following public notice and a meaningful opportunity for
comment. I expect the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council established
under section 105 to provide a period of at least 90 days to allow the
public to comment on the proposed strategy, or any subsequent
revisions. This legislation is supported by state and local government,
the business community and the environmental community. Every Member of
Congress should be proud to support it.
I would like to thank the sponsors of the bills included in this
conference report, the House conferees, and all the members of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I would particularly like
to thank Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert and
Subcommittee Ranking Member Borski, for their hard work on bringing
this legislation to the floor. Let me also congratulate and thank the
Senate conferees, in particular Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Baucus of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for their
cooperation.
This conference report is also the result of a lot of hard work by
House and Senate staff. Special thanks go to Susan Bodine, Carrie
Jelsma, Donna Campbell, Ben Grumbles, Ken Kopocis, Ryan Seiger, Pam
Keller, John
[[Page 24337]]
Rayfield, and David Jansen of the House staff and Ann Klee, John
Pemberton, Suzanne Matwyshen, Ann Loomis, Jo-Ellen Darcy and Peter
Washburn of the Senate staff. I urge all Members to support this
comprehensive package of critically needed environmental bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my thanks to the
chairman for this great work. This is, in fact, a major step forward
for environmental protection and estuary enhancement. So I would like
to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the other
conferees on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for
their great work on this bill.
The section of the bill that, of course, I authored, H.R. 1237,
allows the authorized funding of $35 million annually through 2005.
These Federal funds can be used for implementation, in addition to the
development of comprehensive management plans in estuarine areas.
Congress recognized the importance of preserving and enhancing
coastal environments with the establishment of the National Estuary
Program, NEP, in 1987. The NEP's purpose is to facilitate State and
local governments' preparation of comprehensive management plans for
threatened and impaired estuaries.
In support of this effort, the EPA is authorized to make grants to
States to develop CCMPs for 30 designated estuaries across the country.
My own State of New Jersey has three approved sites in the NEP, one of
which is Barnegat Bay, which lies mostly in my district. The bay is a
watershed which drains land for approximately 550 square miles. Over
450,000 people live in the Barnegat Bay watershed and the population
doubles there in the summer.
Nonpoint source pollution, while diffuse, is cumulatively the most
important issue in addressing adverse impacts on water quality and the
health of living resources in the bay. The final CCMP for Barnegat Bay
is complete, but without the additional funding of this program, as
well as explicitly permitting NEP to use Federal funds for the
implementation of the program, the Federal Government would have
absolved itself of the responsibility as a partner with the States in
protecting and enhancing the Nation's most endangered habitats.
Therefore, I would like to thank my colleagues, in particular the
chairman, for expeditiously moving this bill.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for doing
such a fine job in bringing us this conference report. I would like to
speak on one part of this conference report, a part that is a win-win-
win solution for the people in San Diego, California, and all those
areas which border the country of Mexico.
We have been dealing with the problem of Mexican sewage flowing into
our area for many decades.
{time} 1715
The gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and I introduced the
legislation that has the provisions in this conference report. What we
intended to do, Mr. Speaker, is to provide a comprehensive solution to
the problem of Mexican sewage flowing into the United States in our
waters.
We have a unique problem, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray)
and I. I want to thank him for working so closely with me and for our
staffs that worked so closely together. I do not think any other two
Members of Congress can say that we have raw sewage flowing through our
districts from another country onto our beaches and onto our riverbeds.
And we, I know, jointly thank the chairman of our committee, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster); the ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and their staffs, especially
Ken Kopocis, Ryan Sieger, and David Heinsfeld because they worked very
hard through some problems that we had between us and with the Senate.
But once everyone realized the magnitude of the problem and, if I may
say so, the historic opportunity to provide a comprehensive solution to
it, these fine staff members and our leadership fought diligently to
craft legislation on which all parties could agree. And the people of
southern San Diego owe a great deal to the chairman and the ranking
member, and I want to thank them so much on their behalf for their
support.
We will advance, through this legislation, a common sense solution to
the problem of international sewage, the treatment of Mexican sewage in
Mexico. Before the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and I
introduced our legislation, plans called for treating less than half of
the sewage that fouls our beaches and estuaries.
It has taken bureaucracies 10 years to prepare a secondary treatment
farm of the International Wastewater Treatment Plant. In that time, the
sewage flows have more than doubled. Yet, the plans have persisted for
a so-called solution that will really not solve the problem but will
only take us back 10 years ago. This legislation seizes the momentum
for solving the problem and fixes the problem now and comprehensively.
My colleague from San Diego and I have been working, are working on
this problem combined for probably 35 to 40 years. When we started
this, 25 million gallons a day of sewage from Mexico needed to be
treated to protect our water and land. Now it has reached 55 to 75
million gallons of sewage. Our residents and particularly our children
need to be protected from this public health nightmare.
Private investors have come forward with an innovative public-private
partnership to treat all of the sewage and treat it in Mexico. Mexico
has generated the sewage and under a treaty has the right to the
treated water. So it makes the most sense not only to treat the sewage
that we have now but to treat it where it is generated and can be
reused by that country's agricultural and industrial interest.
This is a win for the U.S. environment. It is a win for our
children's health. It is a win for international relations and a win
for recycling a precious resource.
So I urge support for this comprehensive solution. It is an
innovative way to approach the issue. It is a long-standing health and
environmental problem. And it most certainly has its own very needed
place in the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of
our subcommittee.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a supporter of the
conference report on S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000.
As my colleagues before me have stated very eloquently, the chairman
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and others who will be
addressing some specifics of this bill, it is good legislation; and it
deserves to be passed.
I am particularly pleased with the final package because it includes
a reauthorization and an expansion of the Long Island Sound Program. I
want to give particular praise to my colleagues, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
They and their colleagues have worked tenaciously on this legislation.
Let me tell my colleagues, in my capacity as chairman of the
subcommittee, I was summoned to the office of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Lazio) several months ago; and thus began a partnership with
the gentleman and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). We
worked literally hundreds of hours to put together this package.
I want to praise Governor Rowland of Connecticut and Governor Pataki
of my home State of New York. They have been real leaders. This just
does not happen overnight. This required a lot of hard work on the part
of a lot of people with vision. Let me say that the vision of the
Lazio-Johnson team has been something very special.
There is a lot more in this bill that is very good, and I will let my
colleagues
[[Page 24338]]
address that. But let me say that this is probably the last major bill
of the Shuster chairmanship of the Committee on Transportation. And let
me say, as someone who has been in this institution for many years as a
staff member and as a Member of Congress in my own right, that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has proven by
performance that he has been the most effective chairman this Congress
has seen in many, many years.
He has assembled a very able, very capable, very professional team;
and he has provided leadership for that team. And he has worked on a
bipartisan basis. Every member of this committee, which is the largest
committee in the history of the Congress, feels that they are part of
the historic legislation, TEA-21, AIR-21; and we have laid the
foundation for Water-21.
This does not just happen by accident. We have to have a leader. And
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has provided that
leadership. We have to have a very capable staff, and he has exercised
the sound judgment to assemble a team second to none.
So as we look back on these 6 years, and incidentally, I think the
idea of term limiting chairmen is crazy. I think the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) had it right when he said it is a dumbing down of
Congress. If we have good people in positions of major responsibility,
we ought to keep them there. I might add, I am going to be a big
beneficiary of term limits. But that is another story for another day.
But let me say in conclusion, this is a good bill. It came from a
very productive committee that has had very able leadership. And I, for
one, want to salute our very distinguished chairman as he brings this
conference report to the floor for our consideration.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) and many other Members in this body. He has spent hours and
hours learning about the issues in other parts of the country and my
part of the world. In San Diego, California, I know how much time he
has spent. He has asked his staff to make sure they understand the
problem. He had legitimate questions and concerns, but he ended up
fighting with us and for us to achieve this goal. And I thank him from
the bottom of my heart.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the distinguished ranking Democratic member of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman.
But, Mr. Speaker, no one has been more persistent or vigorous in
pursuit of a goal than has the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
He has doggedly pursued with the determination and with copious
documentation the goal that we achieve today on this floor, and I
compliment the gentleman on his extremely able representation of the
people of his district. And I appreciate the partnership that has
resulted also with the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) in
equally pursuing. Practically the first issue that he discussed with me
after his swearing into the Congress a few years ago was this very
issue, and I have not forgotten.
I concur in the remarks of the able chairman of the Subcommittee on
Water Resources. Our distinguished full committee chairman, on many
occasions I have referred to his extraordinary leadership and record of
accomplishment. But I am just a little puzzled. This should not be the
last bill that the chairman brings to the House floor. We are hopeful
that there will be another that will be a fitting cap to the chairman's
distinguished career in the House and we finally act on the Water
Resources Development Act.
I also want to pay deserved tribute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) who has devoted an enormous amount of time to
this legislation, of course to the gentleman from New York (Chairman
Boehlert) for his pursuit of environmental protection on our committee.
I appreciate the partnership that we have had and the leadership that
he has given, Mr. Speaker.
The primary focus of this legislation is restoration of estuaries. In
the Nation's ocean coastal regions, the estuary is the great meeting
place of salt and fresh water, the great meeting place where new forms
of life are created.
All through the world, there are about a handful of truly
extraordinary great resources, estuaries. The Chesapeake Bay is one of
those. There are others that we address today in this legislation. And
the reason that we focus our attention on this legislation is that
whatever drains into the estuary from the land, wherever the ocean
meets that fresh water, either we are doing good for the generation of
new species or the maintenance of existing species or we are doing
irreparable harm.
The legislation that we act on today moves us in the direction of
doing right by the fish and the wildlife in these vital transition
areas between fresh and salt water.
In the most recent national water quality inventory, States reported
that 44 percent of the Nation's assessed estuaries do not meet their
designated use, fishing, swimming, supporting aquatic life.
In the Great Lakes, it is even more troubling; a matter that I spent
a great deal of time on over my service in the Congress as a Member and
previously as a member of the staff. The data on the Great Lakes are
troubling. Ninety-six percent of the assessed shoreline miles of the
Great Lakes do not meet one or more designated uses.
As expressed in one of the most important indicators of quality of
water, fish consumption advisors, if we live anywhere in America, we
have five parts per billion PCBs in our body. If we live within 25
miles of one of the Great Lakes and eat fish once a week, we have up to
440 parts per billion PCBs in our body.
We need to clean those estuaries. We need to remove the sediment on
the bottom. We need to take those permanent toxins out of the bottom
where they have been deposited over decades and remove them so that we
can restore the health of the fishery and the health of the people who
depend upon that beneficiary.
This bill does not address that issue, nor do I raise an issue about
that. I just make the point that there is much more work for us to be
done.
The $275 million over the next 5 years authorized under this bill
will enable the Secretary of the Army and the Corps of Engineers to
restore estuarine habitat. The cost will be shared with local sponsors
to improve degraded estuaries and estuarine habitat, the goal of
building a self-sustaining system integrated into the landscape
surrounding the estuaries.
One important aspect of this program is the participation of
nonprofit entities as local sponsors. The conference report allows
nongovernmental organizations to act as local sponsors of estuary
restoration projects after consultation and coordination with the
appropriate State and local officials. Unlike the House-passed version
of the bill, the conference report does not require the approval of the
governor of a State before a nongovernmental organization can act as
the non-Federal cosponsor.
I want to express to the chairman my great appreciation for his
cooperation in working this matter out. It was very important to me and
to the regions that I represent of Minnesota and those throughout the
Great Lakes to have come to this accommodation, and I appreciate the
chairman's assistance.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers have said, I would like to also add
my comments and praise and respect to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Shuster) of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. It has been my experience in dealing with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) that we have had
[[Page 24339]]
for a number of years an honorable, professional relationship. The
chairman has helped with this package of restoration bills to restore a
number of problems throughout this Nation, and I want to thank him for
that.
{time} 1730
We are here to pass the conference report that will do a great deal
as far as restoring America's estuaries and other problems throughout
our coastal regions and the Great Lakes of the United States. We are
here because our approach to these problems has not been the best in
the past. Our approach to deal with the Nation's estuaries and the
Great Lakes have been the responsibility of, for example, the Corps of
Engineers, Fish and Wildlife, Department of Agriculture, EPA, National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the list goes on
and on and on; and each of those Federal entities has been responsible
for a certain piece of the whole.
Now, they have also been responsible for things like dredging, which
degrade estuaries; bulldozing; the building of dams; draining; paving;
sewage discharge. The list goes on there as well.
Each of those areas, draining, bulldozing, sewage discharge,
dredging, damming, air pollution, all of those things has a degrading,
fragmenting effect on our estuaries. And each of the Federal agencies
has approached each of those entities as something distinct and
separate.
What this legislation does is it brings all of those Federal agencies
and their appropriate counterparts on the State level, the local level,
and the private sector and it sees the estuaries as a whole. The entire
ecosystem not only will be researched and studied, but will be
restored. The grasses will be replanted. The oysters, instead of oyster
bars, will have oyster reefs. The migrating songbirds will have a place
to rest on the way to South America. The migrating Canada geese or the
snowgeese or the shad or any other fish species that we can think of
will come back because the ecosystem, instead of being fragmented, will
begin to become whole.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the conference
report. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman
of the committee, once again for his help with this legislation.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman), my good friend.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, the love fest that is going on around here
obviously makes us all feel very good about what this committee has
accomplished over the last couple of years in transportation and in
water issues, and so I give my congratulations to all of my colleagues
for the work that they have done. I do not serve on the committee, so I
am expressing great gratitude to all members who have worked over the
last several years with me.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, she may not serve on this committee, but
she has been so persistent in pursuit of the issues that she and the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) have both coordinated on, that
this is a better bill because of the gentlewoman's persistence.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for those kind words.
I have to say that I am very excited about the Alternative Water
Sources Act being put into this conference report. For 20 years in
various capacities, whether on the city council or in the State Senate,
I have worked on alternative water sources because of some particular
problems in the State of Florida. Those problems sometimes are issues
where in counties that I live and represent, we have an abundance of
water and to the south of me, there is not as much water. So there is
always this opportunity or problem going on of trying to come in and
pipe water down to other areas.
So what we have tried to really do in this piece of legislation is to
work with the technology that is available across this country for
providing alternative water sources, because we are finding that States
and other places are actually having to hunt for this water for
drinking and agriculture and industrial and commercial uses.
What the bill represents is the beginning of a long-term, sustained
effort to meet our future water needs. Over the years, Congress has
adopted many water programs; some deal with quality and others deal
with quantity. But the Alternative Water Sources Act will help States
meet ever-expanding demands for water. This bill establishes a 3-year,
$75 million program to fund water projects that conserve, reclaim, and
reuse precious water resources in an environmentally sustainable
manner.
As a result of innovative technology, such as deep-well infusion, new
methods of reusing and enhancing area water supplies can be applied
today. And if we use or improve this technology in one part of the
country, it will help other parts of the country because it will reduce
pressure to move water from one region to another.
A quote from the Christian Science Monitor on April 14 said,
``Whether it is desalinization, capturing rainwater, water-saving
farming methods, or water pricing structures that impel greater
conservation, humanity should use every tool available to safeguard
this most basic natural resource.''
Alternative water projects provide an important tool to safeguard
this to safeguard these resources. And I realize that water reuse alone
will not solve coming water problems. But I do believe that a real
national water policy, that actually the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) and I talked about on this floor, must include improved
conservation programs. I think this is a great first step.
Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to the road that we travel next
year in the 107th Congress. The only thing that I will miss is the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), who has been steadfast, as
always with tenacity, in helping us move this legislation along and her
friendship, and her confidence in this piece of legislation is deeply
appreciated. I will miss the gentlewoman, and I know she will be with
us working right alongside of us anyway.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of the
conference report on S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of
2000. This bill is a combination of eight important water-related
pieces of legislation, and it does represent the true bipartisanship of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
I do also want to add my commendations to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) to those of my colleagues for his
tireless efforts on this important legislation and his effectiveness as
chairman, because it has been a real pleasure and an honor for me to
serve on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and as a
subcommittee chairman under his leadership for the past 6 years.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Borski) for their work on this important piece of legislation and all
of their assistance that they provided in getting us to this point.
Mr. Speaker, I have worked on title VI of this bill, the Alternative
Water Sources Act, with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida
(Mrs. Thurman), and she has worked tirelessly on this, and she is a
true friend. This measure will create a pilot program providing Federal
matching funds under the Clean Water Act to assist eligible States with
the development of alternative water sources projects to meet the
projected water supply demand for urban development, industrial,
agricultural, and environmental needs.
Many will say our existing water supply is sufficient, but our
children could have an uncertain future when they turn on the faucet.
There are many
[[Page 24340]]
States, including Florida and New York, where the increase in
population growth has put a significant strain on their water supply.
That is why we need to encourage States to be forward thinking when it
comes to water supply and alternative sources. A new Federal
partnership is needed to avoid a crisis, a partnership that will ensure
our water supply will keep pace with population growth and protect this
natural resource.
So, I again want to thank the leadership of this committee for all of
their hard work on this, and I encourage my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Filner) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me start by commending the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), chairman and the ranking member of the committee. I have to
say, while I have not always agreed with the chairman and the ranking
member, I have the greatest respect for them and I think they have been
the most effective team in the time that I have spent in the House. And
quite frankly, they have been a model for how this House ought to
operate, and so I commend both of them, particularly the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), as well as the chairman and ranking
member of the subcommittee.
I have had the opportunity to work with them on a number of pieces of
legislation, even though I do not sit on the committee; and both the
full and subcommittee chair and ranking members have always been
helpful. If a Member has a good idea, they are willing to listen and
work with them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S.
835, the Estuaries and Clean Water Act. I want to commend our
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), for his work on
this, and in particular on the National Estuary Act of which he is an
original sponsor and I am one of the cosponsors. This bill is
tremendously important to restore all of our national estuaries,
including Galveston Bay, which borders my district in Texas.
Galveston Bay produces two-thirds of Texas' oyster harvest, one-third
of Texas' bay shrimp catch, and one-quarter of Texas' blue crab catch.
Galveston Bay's watershed is heavily industrialized and densely
populated. Since the 1950s, 30,000 acres of wetlands have been lost in
this estuary. Wastewater discharges into Galveston Bay account for half
of Texas' total wastewater discharges every year. Like many of
America's beloved bays and estuaries, the productivity of Galveston Bay
has declined. Local community response, however, which is necessary, is
facilitated by this act.
The report authorizes $275 million over 5 years in a matching grant
for locally developed estuary habitat restoration projects. The goal of
this money is the restoration of a million acres of estuary over the
next 10 years. Only with our help will estuaries continue producing
food, water quality, employment, and recreation benefits along
America's coastlines.
I am also pleased that the conference report authorizes an additional
$175 million for the National Estuary Program. These funds will be used
to develop and implement comprehensive programs in estuaries of
national significance, including Galveston Bay.
As proof of the ability of local communities and organizations to
take on estuary restoration, I would like to share this about Galveston
Bay. The Galveston Bay Foundation was created under the National
Estuary Program, and they have undertaken the ambitious program of
restoring 24,000 of the 30,000 estuary acres lost, habitat acres lost
in Galveston Bay. Assisted by the National Estuary Program, the
foundation also monitors water quality by training volunteers in
distributing monitoring equipment.
In addition, I would add that the Galveston Bay Foundation has been
the catalyst for developing an environmentally sensitive approach to
the deepening and widening of the Houston ship channel, which was
authorized under WRDA 1996 bill. So I think from Galveston Bay, and
this is true with the other bays around the Nation, the Galveston Bay
Foundation has proved that the National Estuary Program works and that
the National Estuary Act can work as well.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman, ranking member, and the
subcommittee chairman and ranking member for having the foresight to
move this bill; the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for
authoring it; and I hope the other body will pass it and the President
will sign it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Orleans, Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of this
conference report on the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000. I speak
with personal knowledge of the importance of this effort, because of
Lake Pontchartrain, a lake that lies largely within my congressional
district. It is vital to the health of the entire region. It is vital
to the quality of life, to the economic health of the region, and so
too with the other estuaries we address in this bill.
It is not a case of people versus the environment somehow. It is
people and the environment, hand in hand. Lake Pontchartrain is a good
example; 5,000 square miles in the Pontchartrain Basin that encompasses
16 parishes in Louisiana as well as four counties in Mississippi, one
of the largest estuaries in the United States. In the middle of it,
Lake Pontchartrain, 630 square miles, the second largest lake in the
United States after the Great Lakes. The population center, of course,
for Louisiana, being surrounded by 1.5 million residents.
But we have had problems in that estuary system over the last 60
years. Wetlands loss, human activities, natural forces have all had
adverse impact on the basin. Wetlands around the basin have been
drained, dredged, and filled and channeled for oil and gas development.
Storm water discharges, inadequate wastewater treatment, agricultural
activities, all of these activities have significantly degraded water
quality.
Loss of wetlands due to subsidence, salt water intrusion, and
hurricanes have also harmed the basin wildlife population so that 13
species are actually on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's threatened
or endangered list. And today, swimming is still not allowed on the
south shore due to high levels of pollution.
{time} 1745
As a result of this, I introduced last September the Pontchartrain
Basin Restoration Act, and that is included in this conference report.
It will create a coordinated, technically sound program that will truly
bring restoration of the basin to the next level.
I want to thank everyone who was so helpful in passing this
legislation in the conference report, certainly including the chairman,
the ranking member of the full committee and the subcommittee and the
subcommittee staff.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown), a great member of our committee and a great
advocate for the people of Florida.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to express my
strong support for the conference report. This bill is important to the
citizens of the State of Florida and it contains provisions that would
improve quality of life and contribute to the cleanup of Lake Apopka,
Florida's second largest but most polluted lake.
For months I have worked with Senator Bob Graham and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), along with Members
of the local community, such as Commissioner Bob Freeman of Orlando and
Friends of Lake Apopka seeking to get Federal help in tackling this
problem of Lake Apopka.
Before the Second World War, Lake Apopka was a nationally known bass
fishing and vacation spot. This 31,000 acre water body supported over
two
[[Page 24341]]
dozen fish camps as well as numerous hotels, restaurants and other
businesses. This authorization is a well-deserved effort that includes
Lake Apopka in a priority demonstration program under Clean Lakes
administration by the EPA.
Regarding alternate water, I would like to congratulate also the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and the conferees for their
determination in getting a new grant program within EPA for alternate
water sources.
I was proud to cosponsor this bill when it was introduced in the
House, and I am very delighted it is included in this conference
report. We must address the critical water resource needs of our
expanding communities, especially in my home State, which so happens to
be the fourth largest State and growing rapidly.
Mr. Speaker, the Water Infrastructure Network released a
comprehensive report at the Conference of Mayors' press conference
recently here at the Capitol on the crisis facing the Nation's waste
water and drinking water systems. The report concluded that there is an
``increasing gap between the Nation's water infrastructure needs and
the Federal Government's financial commitment to safe and clean
water.''
This bill is a good start, and I want to commend the parties
involved.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me time, and I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Shuster) for his outstanding leadership of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure in these 6 years of his chairmanship
and thank him and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their
thorough and careful negotiating of this bill with the Senate and my
colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who was so
instrumental in writing this estuary bill which will restore 1 million
acres of estuary habitat over the next 10 years through a voluntary
incentive-based program. I believe it is going to serve the Nation
admirably and enable us to do something we have long needed to do,
which is better protect our estuaries.
In this bill is the Long Island Sound bill that the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Lazio), with Republican and Democrat backing from New
York, and I, with the same broad backing from Connecticut, spearheaded.
It will provide Connecticut and New York with the help they need to
restore the Long Island Sound to full health so that all of our
constituents can enjoy its beaches, its seafood and the products that
come through its ports.
As important, this bill's provisions in regard to the Long Island
Sound provide Connecticut and New York with the flexibility that they
need to develop innovative approaches to cleaning the Sound, while
reducing costs for small communities and impoverished cities.
Indeed, we cannot do things in the future in exactly the same way we
have done them in the past. We must achieve the same goals, but we must
do it in a way that does not destroy the taxpaying base of our small
rural communities with their rather set tax capability or harm our
impoverished cities.
So this bill provides flexibility to allow States like Connecticut
and New York to develop the kind of innovative and cost-effective
approaches using the most modern technologies to address the problems
of Long Island Sound and restore it to its health.
I thank the chairman for his leadership and his support.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the Estuary Restoration Act is good for the Nation and
thus good for California. I commend the leadership of the House and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work to
bring this conference report before us.
This act demonstrates congressional commitment to restoring one
million acres of estuaries over the next decade, while promoting a
constructive partnership among all levels of government and the private
sector.
This conference report directs the Secretary of the Army to give
priority consideration to the Los Cerritos wetlands, located in the
district that I represent. Restoration of these wetlands will help
retain natural habitat in Los Angeles County and improve the quality of
life for residents throughout the area. Los Angeles County has lost
more than 93 percent of its coastal wetlands. Los Cerritos represents
one of only three sizable areas remaining that could be restored and
could include nearly 400 acres when completed.
The Estuary Restoration Act provides critical help to our Nation's
environment, and I strongly urge support for this vital legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray)
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for not
only this bill, for including my bill into this package, but also all
of the work that he has done to help us with the Tijuana sewage problem
in San Diego Imperial Beach area. I want to thank the ranking member
for his sensitivity to it. I know we have been discussing this a long
time.
This bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and I have
been working on that has been included in this package is actually one
that goes back to a recognition that 20 years ago the Federal
Government of the United States decided that the Tijuana estuarine area
was so important environmentally that 50 percent of the City of
Imperial Beach, my hometown, had to be taken by condemnation to be able
to preserve it for future generations.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that from the month that that
designation of estuarine preserve was given by the Federal Government,
the estuary has been polluted by foreign sources of sewage. I want to
commend the chairman and the ranking member, because in this bill, it
is the first comprehensive, long-term strategy to address that
pollution problem that has existed for all too long.
I think it recognizes the fact that if the Federal Government thinks
that the Tijuana estuary is so important to preserve by taking it in
possession, it is also important enough to make sure it is not polluted
and destroyed by a foreign government's adverse activity through the
introduction of sewage. This bill will finally have that comprehensive
approach and do it in a way that is not only not piecemeal, but
actually binational as we work into it.
I think again, as we have said before, the fact is that this bill
will include a prototype that I would ask my colleagues to look at,
that will not only work in Imperial Beach and San Diego and the Tijuana
estuary, but I think will be the vanguard of environmental strategies
around the world, and that is paying for a service done, rather than a
project built; paying for the environment to be cleaned up, not for a
plan or a project that hopefully will clean up the problem.
This is not the end, but it is definitely the beginning of the end of
addressing a problem that some of us have worked on for over 20 years
and spent many years working on.
I want to thank everyone involved, and the estuary and the people
that live around the estuary will thank you for this for years to come.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege and the pleasure of serving on
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for the past 2
years. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), have
disproven an old thought or an old perception that you cannot have it
both ways, you cannot rebuild
[[Page 24342]]
America's infrastructure and at the same time improve the environmental
conditions here, and this is one of the best examples of that. I want
to thank them for all of their hard work.
Earlier this year, this House passed the Clean Lakes Act by an
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 420 to 5. I introduced the Clean
Lakes bill because I have a strong belief that we can make a difference
in preserving the environment for future generations. I am pleased to
see the Clean Lakes bill included as amendment to S. 835, and I am
proud of the hard work that went into the conference report, and
strongly support its passage today.
This single bill encompasses eight excellent programs that will
advance clean water initiatives across the country and will benefit the
generations to come by cleaning up and restoring many of our estuaries,
sounds, beaches, bays, basins, keys and lakes.
I just want to take a moment to focus specifically on the Clean Lakes
Program. Where I am from, which includes the Catskill and Adirondack
mountain ranges in upstate New York, the very lives of our lakes are
threatened. This bill forwards a number of initiatives that will allow
us and give us the resources to fight the fight that we need to, to
ensure that their pristine nature and the way of life that many of my
constituents know today can be preserved.
Again I want to thank both the chairman and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their terrific work.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, again I want to thank the chairman and
his staff, particularly Carrie Jelsma, was very helpful to us and
worked so hard; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and his
staff, they worked overtime to help the people I know in my area; and I
am sure throughout the Nation. I want to thank the staff of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), Dave Schroeder, and my own
staff member, Mary Niez, who worked tirelessly on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, thanks from many parts of the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while we are hopeful that we might have legislation to
bring to this floor in the waning days of the Congress, that may well
not be the case, so this could well be the last legislation that we
will have before the body during my stewardship over the past 6 years
as chairman of Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the
largest committee of the Congress, 75 members, as well as the most
productive.
I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
their tremendous support in working to pass as much legislation as we
have indeed passed to build America. The extraordinary bipartisanship
of our committee is the reason why we were able to be so productive.
My dear friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and I
have worked shoulder to shoulder with all the members on both sides of
the aisle. Over these past 6 years, this committee has passed through
this House 265 bills, of which 109 pieces of legislation have been
signed into law, an unparalleled record. Indeed, not only have there
been a large number of bills come through our committee, but, as a
result of the bipartisan effort in the committee and in this House,
historic legislation as well.
We have put finally, after many years of battle, trust back into the
transportation trust funds, in TEA-21, a $218 billion transportation to
rebuild America, the largest transportation bill in the history not
only of the United States but of the world, and yet no tax increase,
because we simply unlocked the trust fund so the money the American
people pay into that trust fund for transportation could be used.
Likewise, with AIR-21, a $40 billion bill to not only invest in
building our aviation system, but to reform it as well. And, goodness
knows, we need that investment and that reform in our aviation system.
AIR-21 takes effect October 1, so it has just been in effect for a few
weeks now. But in the months and years ahead, I am sure the American
people will see the positive impact of that legislation.
We passed major environmental legislation to clean up our lakes and
our waters, our water and sewer systems. We passed economic development
legislation to create jobs and stimulate the economy. The committee
indeed is the building committee of the Congress, and that is what that
committee has been about for the past 6 years, on a totally bipartisan
basis.
{time} 1800
Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record a report entitled ``Building a
Transportation and Infrastructure Legacy, Accomplishments of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the 104th, 105th, and
106th Congresses.''
Building a Transportation and Infrastructure Legacy, Accomplishments of
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 104th, 105th,
106th Congresses
INTRODUCTION
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has
been a Committee of accomplishment. During the past six
years, under the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Bud
Shuster (R-PA) and Ranking Members Norm Mineta (D-CA) and
James Oberstar (D-MN), the Committee has been a driving force
in renewing America's commitment to building assets and
promoting safety in all modes of transportation and key
aspects of environmental protection. The T&I Committee
succeeded in restoring integrity to the Highway and Aviation
Trust Funds after nearly three decades of fiscal abuse,
enabling us to make much-needed improvements to our roads,
bridges, transit systems, airports, and air traffic control
system in a fiscally responsible manner and without
increasing taxes. In the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt's
leadership on the Panama Canal and Dwight Eisenhower's on the
Interstate Highway System, the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee has renewed the country's commitment
to our national transportation network as the cornerstone of
a strong economy. It is a legacy that will last well into the
21st Century.
Whether it be a renewed investment in highways and transit
systems contained in the ``Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century'' (``TEA 21''), a commitment to modernization
and expanding our aviation system found in the ``Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century'' (``AIR
21''), a reform package to help the financially troubled
national passenger railroad Amtrak achieve solvency, changes
to our international ocean shipping regulations to encourage
competition and increase U.S. exports, or assistance for
water and wastewater infrastructure and hazardous waste
cleanup, the T&I Committee has worked in a bipartisan fashion
to address the needs of America's communities.
In addition, the Committee has worked hard to make sure
that--both through proper investment and appropriate federal
oversight--the public safety is protected in all modes of
transportation. Through its six subcommittees--Aviation;
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation; Economic
Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials, and
Pipeline Safety; Ground Transportation; Water Resources and
Environment; and Oversight, Investigations and Emergency
Management--significant time was devoted to safety oversight
of aviation, railroads, motor carrier and truck safety,
pipelines, commercial vessel and recreational boating safety,
and public buildings, including increased federal security in
the wake of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City.
An equally important Committee responsibility is that of
protecting our environment. The Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment has led the effort to increase
assistance for community water infrastructure systems and to
protect and restore degraded or threatened waters and
watersheds. The results have been landmark laws, such as
Water Resource Development Acts, other bipartisan, broadly
supported bills as well as probing oversight hearings that
have ushered in significant administrative reforms for
controversial Superfund and Clean Water programs. The Coast
Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee also developed
legislation to help the Coast Guard improve the enforcement
of Federal laws protecting the marine environment, including
the reduction of solid waste pollution and oil spills from
vessels. The Subcommittee also conducted extensive oversight
hearings on marine environmental protection.
During the six years that the T&I Committee was led by
Chairman Shuster, it grew from a 61-Member panel to a 75-
Member panel--the largest in the history of Congress. To
carry out its broad responsibilities, the Committee held 314
hearings, passed 265 bills through the House, of which 109
have been enacted into law to date.
[[Page 24343]]
RESTORING TRUST TO THE TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUNDS
When the Highway Trust Fund was established in 1956, the
principle was simple: motorists would pay a tax that would be
put into a Trust Fund dedicated to improving the nation's
roadways. In 1970, the same framework was applied to the
establishment of the Aviation Trust Fund. Unfortunately, the
principle was compromised. For three decades, more money was
collected than was actually spent on road improvements. Each
year, the unified budget ``borrowed'' money from the trust
fund to offset other federal spending. In 1995, the Highway,
Aviation and two smaller water infrastructure trust funds had
a combined balance of about $30 billion that, under the
Administration's proposal, was expected to balloon to $77
billion by 2002.
Under Chairman Shuster's leadership, the T&I Committee
launched a successful campaign that released billions of
dollars in highway, transit and aviation funds and
established permanent budget reforms that restored integrity
to the Highway and Aviation Trust Funds and provided a
precedent for unlocking the water trust funds.
Beginning with the introduction of H.R. 842, the ``Truth in
Budgeting Act'' in the 104th Congress, which had 224
cosponsors and passed the House by an overwhelming vote of
284-143, and a subsequent amendment to the FY 1998 Budget
Resolution that again demonstrated the strong support for
unlocking the trust funds, the foundation was paved for
passage of critical budget reforms in the 105th Congress with
the enactment of TEA 21 (Public Law 105-178). This landmark
legislation reauthorized the nation's highway and transit
programs and changed the budget treatment of the Highway
Trust Fund, thereby permanently protecting it from budgetary
abuse.
In the 106th Congress, the Committee focused its effort on
unlocking the Aviation Trust Fund. Again, budget reforms were
instituted as part of the AIR 21 (Public Law 106-181), that
are just now resulting in significant increases in funding
for much-needed airport expansion and air traffic control
system modernization.
INVESTING IN AMERICA AND OUR COMMUNITIES
One of the oldest responsibilities of the federal
government is the establishment and maintenance of our
transportation and infrastructure system. Beginning with
ocean ports and waterways, then later roads, railways, and
airports, the government made the necessary investments and
the nation prospered. In today's increasingly global
marketplace, the need for an efficient transportation network
is more important than ever before. Moreover, assuring modern
environmental and water infrastructure is both a quality of
life issue and, for many communities, an economic necessity.
The T&I Committee's flagship achievement was the 1998
enactment of TEA 21, which reauthorized the nation's highway,
transit, motor carrier, and highway safety programs for
fiscal years 1998-2003. This historic legislation created,
for the first time, a statutory link between highway and
transit investment and the fuel excise taxes paid by
motorists and deposited into the Highway Trust Fund.
TEA 21 puts the financial resources of the Highway Trust
Fund to work rebuilding and improving the nation's
infrastructure, which had suffered from anemic under-funding
during the past several decades. The overall authorized
levels of $218 billion represents a 43 percent increase in
funding for roads, bridges, and transit systems nationwide.
These increases were accomplished without increasing taxes by
simply unlocking the money already being collected from
system users. Moreover, the budget reforms mean that, if
Trust Fund receipts increase in the future, the amount
available to maintain and improve our roads and transit
systems will increase. It also included a greatly expanded,
$3.5 billion rail infrastructure revolving loan program to
help communities address serious transportation choke points
at major port, transloading facilities, passenger terminals
and other intermodal facilities.
TEA 21 directly addressed equity concerns of ``donor''
states by ensuring a fair return on each state's Highway
Trust Fund contributions. On an average annual basis, each
state will receive more in real dollars than it did in ISTEA,
TEA 21's predecessor, and each state will receive a ``Minimum
Guarantee'' of 90.5 percent return on what its motorists
contributed. The minimum guarantee replaces the myriad equity
programs that existed under ISTEA. TEA 21 also eliminated the
donor state ``penalty'' that counted allocations of
discretionary grants against the state's return.
In response to a growing concern over our aviation system's
ability to handle the increased demand for air travel since
deregulation of the airline industry, the Aviation
Subcommittee sponsored and the House passed H.R. 2276, ``The
Aviation Revitalization Act,'' to help the Federal Aviation
Administration address some of the barriers to system
improvements. These include changes to cumbersome personnel
rules so the agency can move its most experienced air traffic
controllers to areas of greatest needs and a simplification
of procurement requirements in order to more quickly acquire
advanced technology. The most significant of these reforms
were ultimately enacted in the DOT appropriations bill.
In H.R. 3539, the ``Federal Aviation Authorization Act''
(Public Law 104-264), the Committee went further, increasing
funding to enable FAA to hire and train additional
maintenance and flight inspectors to achieve a higher level
of safety for the flying public. It was in this legislation
that Congress established the National Civil Aviation Review
Commission to make recommendations on long-term actions to
address increased demand.
In 1997, the National Civil Aviation Review Commission's
report said that, ``Without prompt action, the United States'
aviation system is headed toward gridlock shortly after the
turn of the century. If this gridlock is allowed to happen,
it will result in a deterioration of aviation safety, harm
the efficiency and growth of our domestic economy, and hurt
our position in the global marketplace. Lives may be
endangered; the profitability and strength of the aviation
sector could disappear; and jobs and business opportunities
far beyond aviation could be foregone.''
In response to these findings and ever-growing frustration
on the part of passengers across the country, the Committee
successfully passed the AIR 21. Significant increases in
funding for air traffic control modernization and airport
expansion are just now being realized as a result of this
landmark legislation. While the effects will not be
immediate. FAA will now have the resources to modernize the
air traffic control system and expand airport capacity,
thereby reducing chronic delays, which have crippled the
aviation system and frustrated passengers.
The T&I Committee continued to champion the Economic
Development Administration (EDA) and the Appalachian Regional
Commission (ARC), both founded in 1965 to address the chronic
poverty in economically distressed regions of the country.
Through highway and safe drinking water investments, as well
as investments in technical and vocational schools and health
care facilities, the Appalachian region has seen its poverty
rates cut in half and its employment rate and number of high
school graduates double. It is a dramatic example of how
investment in roads and other public infrastructure can spur
economic growth and reduce poverty. The 105th Congress
reauthorized these programs (Public Law 105-393), providing
$1.8 billion over 5 years to EDA and $207 million for three
years to ARC. In the case of EDA, it was the first time in
seventeen years that the agency's mission was formally
reauthorized, so agency reforms were also instituted to
better direct its activities to the most distressed
communities.
The T&I Committee also maintains jurisdiction over the
nation's water infrastructure, including ports, inland
waterways, drinking and wastewater infrastructure, and dams
and other water management infrastructure developed by the
Army Corps of Engineers. The Committee has sought to provide
significant increases in funding for this infrastructure to
help communities meet their ever-growing needs.
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 (Public
Law 104-303), authorizing $5.4 billion in various Corps of
Engineers projects and programs, successfully returned
Congress and the nation to the two-year cycle for enacting
water projects and policy changes. On a bipartisan basis, the
Committee authorized 44 major projects for navigation, flood
control, shore protection, environmental restoration,
hydropower production, water supply, and recreation, as well
as scores of other projects and project modifications. WRDA
of 1999 (Public Law 106-53), authorizing $6.1 billion in
various Corps projects and programs, signified yet another
bipartisan success in meeting the nation's water resource
needs on a timely basis. Among the highlights: 45 major
project authorizations, including a controversial flood
control project for the American River in California, a new
program for flood control and ecosystem restoration, and
modified or additional authorities for critical projects and
regional programs for environmental restoration and related
infrastructure. WRDA 2000 authorized the Army Corps of
Engineers to begin an historic 20-year project to restore the
natural water flow in the Florida Everglades as well as
authorizing $5.1 billion in flood control, navigation
improvements, environmental protection and restoration, and
other national water infrastructure projects. The House
passed WRDA 2000 on October 19, 2000, by a vote of 394-14.
In addition, the Committee has also approved 200 survey
resolutions since 1995, directing the Corps of Engineers to
study potential solutions to water-related infrastructure
problems throughout the country, as well as four ``small
watershed program'' projects directing the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation
Service, to construct projects in rural areas for flood
control, water supply, and environmental restoration.
The ``Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996'' (Public
Law 104-182) included key provisions championed by the T&I
Committee. It established a new $1 billion per year state
revolving fund (SRF) for drinking
[[Page 24344]]
water assistance, modeled on and integrated with the Clean
Water Act's existing SRF, and included a new $350 million
authorization for grants to States for drinking water
infrastructure and watershed protection. It also included
financial and technical assistance for the District of
Columbia's drinking water treatment system and for sanitation
needs in Alaska and along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Clean Water infrastructure also has been a major focus of
the Committee over the last 6 years, including the
development and passage of comprehensive legislation, over a
dozen legislative and oversight hearings, and countless
discussions with appropriators and members of the Executive
Branch. The Committee has consistently sought to help
communities and state and local water officials in their
campaign to win more funding for core programs under the
Clean Water Act, such as the SRF, and for grants to hardship
communities, rural areas, and states for wastewater
treatment, combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflows, and
nonpoint source pollution. For example, the House-passed
Clean Water Amendments of 1995 authorized over $11 billion
for the SRF and $1 billion for nonpoint source grants.
In the 106th Congress, the Committee successfully moved
important regional and national infrastructure and water
quality bills through the House. For example, the ``Estuaries
and Clean Waters Act of 2000'' authorized approximately $1.6
billion for various coastal and inland projects and
infrastructure programs for the country. The House passed
the conference report on this legislation (S. 835) on
October 25, 2000, clearing the bill for the President.
promoting transportation safety
A key Committee responsibility is oversight of our Federal
programs that protect the safety of the traveling public and
our communities. The Committee took a number of steps to
improve the public safety on board aircraft and marine
vessels, and on our nation's roads, railroads, and pipeline
transportation network.
Aviation safety played a prominent role during the past six
years. In response to National Transportation Safety Board
recommendations and at least seven accidents where pilot
error was the cause and the pilot had a previous record of
poor performance, Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Duncan
sponsored the ``Airline Pilot Hiring and Safety Act.'' The
legislation, enacted as part of the Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act of 1996, requires airlines to request and
receive records of an individual's performance as a pilot
before hiring that individual as a commercial pilot. In the
1995 reauthorization of the National Transportation Safety
Board (Public Law 104-291), the Committee made changes to
facilitate voluntary reporting of safety data. In this year's
NTSB reauthorization, the Committee clarified the role of the
Safety Board in accident investigations and strengthened the
protection of information obtained from voice and flight data
recorders.
The Aviation Subcommittee also responded to reports that
more people die from heart attacks aboard aircraft than die
as a result of aircraft accidents. The Committee enacted the
``Aviation Medical Assistance Act'' (Public Law 105-170)
directing the Federal Aviation Administration to gather data
and develop a rule to require that defibrillators be
installed on aircraft. Since then, airlines have begun
installing defibrillators and many lives have been saved.
Promoting safety of motor carrier operations on our
Nation's highways has always been one of the Committee's top
priorities. In 1999, in an effort to ensure that motor
carrier safety issues were given their due attention and
funding with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the
Ground Transportation Subcommittee held a series of four
hearings to examine the effectiveness of the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA's) oversight of this ever-expanding
industry. The Committee found that motor carrier safety
functions were hampered by competition for resources at FHWA.
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-159)
transferred motor carrier safety functions and oversight of
the motor carrier safety program (MCSAP) out of FHWA and
created a new Administration to take over those
responsibilities. The Act also equipped the new Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration with an increase in funding for
the MCSAP program and tighter, more demanding commercial
drivers' licensing requirements.
In April 1995, a home-made bomb exploded outside the Murrah
Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people,
including several preschool children enrolled in the
building's child care center, and causing $500 million in
damages to 320 buildings in the vicinity. This tragedy
illustrated the vulnerability of federal employees and
facilities to random acts of violence. The Committee
responded by calling on the General Services Administration
to undertake an assessment of security at all federal
buildings. In July 1995, the Administration submitted its
security assessment and requested over $240 million for
upgrades at the nation's federal buildings. For FY 1997, the
Committee approved $40 million to ensure that all newly
authorized federal buildings, courthouses, and border
stations received these security enhancements. The Committee
also sponsored the House-passed Baylee's Law, requiring GSA
to notify parents enrolling children in child care centers in
federal buildings of the current federal agencies occupying
the building and the level of security of the building.
To address one of our nation's most dire public health
problems, the nation's failure to reduce illegal drug use
among America's youth, the Committee moved to tighten the
noose around illegal narcotics smugglers. While the
Administration has relied on programs to treat and retreat
hard-core drug addicts, the T&I Committee has consistently
supported Coast Guard drug interdiction efforts, which raise
the street price of illegal drugs to deter casual drug users,
especially teenagers. The ``Western Hemisphere Drug
Elimination Act'' (Public Law 105-277), represented a bold
move by Congress to address the increase in illicit drug use
by teenagers over the last eight years. It provided the Coast
Guard with an additional $151 million annually to expand its
drug interdiction efforts. In addition, the House-passed
``Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999'' provides $550
million in additional funding for Coast Guard drug
interdiction above the level requested by the President for
fiscal year 2001.
In order to strengthen and improve our nation's efforts to
combat drunk driving, the T&I Committee adopted a number of
broad programs in TEA 21 to reduce drunk driving and
accidents and fatalities. These included: a $500 million
incentive grant program for states which enact .08 Blood
Alcohol Content (BAC) laws; increased funding of $219 million
for the impaired driving grant program along with
programmatic reforms to include performance-based factors and
to target those drunk drivers who pose the highest risk on
the roads; and provisions to encourage states to enact open
container laws and minimum penalties for repeat offenders.
The T&I Committee has sought, through a number of vehicles,
to improve maritime safety. The ``Sportfishing and Boating
Safety Act of 1998,'' (enacted as part of Public Law 105-178)
increased state funding for recreational boating safety
programs. The Coast Guard Authorization Acts of 1996, 1998,
and 2000 included provisions to improve maritime drug and
alcohol testing programs, provide penalties for interfering
with the safe operation of a vessel, and require a more
prompt development of the Coast Guard's new National Distress
and Response System. The Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee held numerous oversight hearings
that highlighted the importance of safety in the maritime
environment, including the Coast Guard's vessel traffic
systems, commercial vessel safety mission, search and rescue
mission, and icebreaking mission, as well as cruise ship
safety, and recreational boating safety.
Lastly, the Committee has continued its oversight of the
Pipeline Safety Program administered by the Department of
Transportation. In the 104th Congress, the Committee
reauthorized the pipeline safety program for a four-year
term, introducing reform into the burdensome regulatory
framework. In the 106th Congress,the Committee again sought
to reauthorize the program, as well as address specific
concerns raised by serious pipeline incident, which occurred
in Bellingham, Washington, and Carlsbad, New Mexico. Towards
this end, Chairman Shuster brought to the House for
consideration S. 2438, a strong, bipartisan pipeline safety
bill that passe the Senate 99-0. While the legislation
received the support of a majority of House Members, it
failed to gain the 2/3 vote required under ``suspension,''
with only 51 Democrats supporting the bill. Some of the major
reforms sought by this comprehensive bill included: mandates
for periodic testing of pipelines and for training and
evaluating safety personnel; significantly increased
penalties for safety violators; a lower reporting threshold
to require reporting of smaller hazardous liquid spills; an
increased state role in the oversight of interstate
pipelines; and increased funding for safety efforts. The
legislation also included a number of provisions on ``right
to know'' to broaden public access to information on pipeline
operations and hazards, whistle blower protection, and
establishment of a formal research and development program to
develop pipeline inspection and safety technology. It is
hoped that Congress will revisit this issue early in the next
Congress.
making transportation programs work more efficiently
The T&I Committee has jurisdiction over federal agencies
that regulate transportation. In 1995, the Committee began
looking at ways to make many of the federal regulatory
functions perform better. Two early efforts were the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which had economic
oversight over the trucking and railroad industries, and the
Federal Maritime Commission, which had oversight over ocean
shipping. These two agencies, both envisioned as small
entities charged with preventing monopolistic practices in
their respective industries, had failed to evolve with the
changing marketplace.
In the case of the ICC, established more than a century ago
to oversee the railroad
[[Page 24345]]
industry at the start of the industrial revolution, it had
become archaic in the modern, global economy. The Interstate
Commerce Commission Termination Act (Public Law 104-88)
addressed these problems by eliminating the ICC and
transferring nearly all of the remaining motor carrier
regulatory oversight functions to the Federal Highway
Administration. The remaining rail functions were transferred
to a 3-member autonomous Surface Transportation Board within
DOT. The legislation saved taxpayers money and established a
regulatory framework that better ensures competition and
smooth functioning of our $320 billion surface transportation
industry.
The Federal Maritime Commission was subject to similar
criticisms, where tariff filing requirements had saddled
shippers and vessel operators with enormous administrative
costs and strengthened foreign shipping cartels by providing
them with access to the private shipping agreements of their
U.S. competitors. In the 104th Congress, the T&I Committee
put forward sweeping legislation to provide U.S. shippers and
vessel operators with a level playing field in the global
shipping industry. The legislation, H.R. 2149, received
strong House support. Although the Senate failed to act on
that legislation in the 104th Congress, it put forward
compromise legislation in the 105th that incorporated many
key elements of H.R. 2149. The House accepted the Senate's
version and enacted the ``Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998
(OSRA)'' (Public Law 105-258). The most important provision
of OSRA allows for ``confidential contracts'' for ocean
transportation. At an oversight hearing a year after
enactment, witnesses from the Federal Maritime Commission,
international ocean carriers, U.S. shippers, and U.S. labor
all reported that the new system was a success. The new
system has increased competition in the international ocean
shipping markets while allowing individual shippers and
carriers to pursue private contracts that provide for the
most efficient international ocean transportation
arrangements.
The National Highway Designation Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-59) approved the designation of 160,000 miles of U.S.
roadway as the National Highway System, and provided $13
billion in Interstate Maintenance and NHS highway funds to
the states in 1996-97. The legislation also eliminated a
number of federal sanctions that had been imposed on the
states in the past, including penalties for states that fail
to enforce a national maximum speed limit or compulsory
motorcycle helmet laws, and streamlined the delivery of
highway and transit programs.
In TEA 21, the Committee remained committed to making
Federal highway and transit programs more efficient, working
to streamline program delivery and cut red tape. The bill
contained a landmark provision to streamline environmental
reviews for highway and transit projects, which was backed by
the Administration, state and local government groups and
environmental constituencies.
Following the ValuJet and TWA airplane crashes in 1996,
families who lost loved ones complained about their ill
treatment at the hands of both government and airline
officials. The Aviation Subcommittee held hearings that
resulted in the introduction of the Aviation Disaster Family
Assistance Act, which was included in the Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-264). The law
requires airlines to develop plans to handle these situations
in the future and gives the National Transportation Safety
Board responsibility for coordinating these efforts. As a
result, more recent crashes have not given rise to the sort
of complaints experienced in 1996. In 1999, the Committee
sought to apply a similar framework to rail accidents in the
Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1999, which
passed the House but was not enacted.
Under T&I Committee leadership, the 105th Congress enacted
the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act (Public Law 105-
134). The bipartisan reforms contained in the Act remove
Amtrak from a crippling statutory straight jacket. At the
time, Amtrak was headed toward bankruptcy. Similar to
legislation the T&I Committee successfully passed through the
House in the 104th Congress but which the Senate declined to
consider, this Act gave Amtrak the opportunity to operate in
a more business-like fashion. Significantly, the Act allowed
Amtrak for the first time to contract work (other than food
service) with third parties and to evaluate routes based upon
profitability rather than a congressionally determined route
structure. It also eliminated statutory labor protections
that required Amtrak to pay displaced workers a year of
severance for each year of service (maximum of six years).
Finally, the Act established a new, seven-member Reform Board
filled with qualified professionals to provide a much-needed
fresh start for Amtrak.
While the reform law provided Amtrak with many new tools,
in addition to authorizing vastly increased funding, it did
not and could not guarantee a successful outcome. The T&I
Committee continues to conduct oversight of Amtrak operations
and Reform Board actions. Recent reports from the General
Accounting Office and the DOT Inspector General are that
Amtrak is not taking advantage of the new law. The decisions
it makes in the coming months will determine whether the
goals of the reform law are realized.
In the 106th Congress, the T&I Committee worked with
railroad labor groups and management to craft a reform
package for the financially ailing Railroad Retirement
program. The ``Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement
Act'' provided long-term solvency to the federally-managed
railroad pension fund by allowing limited trust fund
resources to be privately invested. It also improved employee
benefits by lowering the retirement age to 60 (with 30 years
of service), increasing benefits for widows, and reducing the
vesting period from 10 to 5 years.
Finally, the T&I Committee introduced and passed as part of
AIR 21, an amendment to the ``Death on the High Seas Act.''
The Act ensures that families will be treated the same
regardless of whether an aircraft crashes on land or at sea.
Prior to the enactment of this legislation, families were
unable to recover damages for the death of a child as a
result of an aircraft accident on the high seas.
ensuring a clean, safe environment
Over the last five years, the Committee has led the debate
on innovative and effective environmental protection for the
21st Century. Legislative achievements and oversight
initiatives have translated into cleaner, safer communities,
more deference to state and local decision making, and
greater emphasis on cost-effective, science-based
regulations.
The Committee's bipartisan ``Clean Water Act Amendments of
1995,'' strongly supported by state and local officials,
offered a comprehensive, commonsense approach to
reauthorization and reform of the Clean Water Act. The House-
passed legislation has served as a catalyst for regulatory
reform in many ways including: more flexibility for water
quality standards to reflect regional and seasonal
variations; greater flexibility in the pretreatment and
stormwater programs; increased focus on watershed-based
effluent trading; greater emphasis on federal-state funding
partnerships; increased funding for voluntary approaches to
managing agricultural runoff and pilot projects to allow
companies and communities regulatory flexibility to achieve
environmental goals in more cost-effective ways.
The ``Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
Act of 2000'' authorized $150 million for EPA assistance to
states to establish monitoring programs to provide the public
with information about the quality of coastal recreational
waters. This act also strengthens the science behind and
effectiveness of water quality standards for coastal
recreational waters. Comparable legislation had been pending,
and languishing, in Congress for almost a decade. The
``Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000,'' comprising 10
separate House-passed bills, authorized $1.6 billion in non-
regulatory, federal assistance for Clean Water Act and
related programs. Such efforts will help restore and protect
estuaries, coastal waters and publicly owned lakes.
Efforts in the 104th and 105th Congresses to enact
Superfund reform and address brownfields highlighted the
glaring deficiencies of the Superfund toxic waste program:
cleanups that are costly, delayed, and ineffective and a
liability system that rewards litigation and rejects
fairness. The ``Reform of Superfund Act,'' the ``Superfund
Acceleration, Fairness, and Efficiency Act,'' and Committee
hearings helped push the Administration towards modest
reforms to make Superfund cleanups ``faster, fairer, and more
effective.''
In 1996 and 1998, in the annual Department of Defense
Authorization bills, the Committee participated in the
development of language to encourage the redevelopment of
closed bases. Also in the FY 1997 Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations bill, the Committee participated in the
development of language to protect lenders from Superfund
liability.
The push for administrative reform and legislative overhaul
of Superfund continued in the 106th Congress. In an historic
vote of 69 to 2, the Committee approved the ``Recycle
America's Land Act of 1999,'' reforming key aspects of
Superfund liability and revitalizing brownfields. The
legislation, which included liability for small businesses
and incentives for voluntary cleanups, helped to initiate
another round of modest administrative reforms.
With the enactment of the ``National Invasive Species Act
of 1996'' (Public Law 104-332), the Committee expanded and
improved efforts to combat problems from invasive, non-
indigenous aquatic species (such as zebra mussels), including
ballast water exchange procedures and Federal research and
demonstration projects. Resulting efforts have benefited
municipal, industrial and agricultural water supplies,
maritime transportation, and the environment.
Finally, the National Parks Air Tour Management Act,
sponsored by Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, helps
minimize aircraft noise over national parks. The legislation,
enacted as part of AIR 21, requires the FAA Administrator to
prescribe operating conditions and limitations for
[[Page 24346]]
each commercial air tour operator and, in cooperation with
the Director of the National Park Service (NPS), develop a
plan before air tours can be conducted over national parks.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, in closing, I want to give my heartfelt thanks
to all my colleagues for their tremendous support, because without that
support we would not have any accomplishments to insert in the Record
today or, more importantly, to provide to the American people in the
years ahead.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, just briefly, although I have commented
many times in committee and on the several bills that we have had,
since the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) is sounding a
note this may, indeed, may be our last major bill on the floor, I just
want to emphasize for our colleagues that in an era of rancor and
divisiveness publicly in the body politic and between the parties and
between the two bodies of Congress, this Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure has stood as a model of legislative achievement, as
an example of how we can advance the commonweal of the Nation by
working together in a relationship of trust and of understanding and of
mutual respect.
Mr. Speaker, that is the bond that draws us together and the bond of
respect that I hold for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster),
our chairman, and for his leadership, steadfast throughout these 6
years of holding an ideal and working to achieve it.
Together we have accomplished something of lasting value for America,
and I compliment the chairman on his leadership, his distinguished
contribution to America. That will stand for all time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my
dear friend, and the key word, I think, is together. We have stood
together, and so it is with heartfelt thanks that I thank the
gentleman, the ranking member of the committee, as well as all of my
colleagues for their tremendous support so that our stewardship of this
committee could indeed be one in which we could be proud.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the decline of estuary
habitats--especially in the San Francisco Bay estuary--has been well-
documented in the scientific and resource management literature for
over 30 years. Tragically, San Francisco Bay has lost over 95% of its
tidal wetlands and continues to be besieged by invasive and aquatic
nuisance species.
Fortunately, S. 835, the Estuaries and Clean Water Act, will provide
a reasonable, balanced approach to both preserve remaining estuarine
habitats and to facilitate effective, locally-driven estuary
restoration in estuaries like San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay in my
district.
I am particularly pleased that non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
will be eligible to participate in this new program. NGOs, such as Save
the Bay and The Bay Institute in the Bay Area, embody the locally
driven focus of this legislation and provide local expertise and
support.
Amendments agreed to in conference also enhance the role of the
Estuary Habitat Restoration Council in the selection of projects and
the delegation of oversight responsibilities for project
implementation. This will bring additional expertise and provide direct
ties to other successful Federal-State partnership programs for
protecting the estuaries, such as the National Estuary Program, the
National Estuarine Research Reserve Program, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service's Fishery Habitat Restoration program.
This conference report is good environmental legislation and I
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support its
passage.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Conference Report on
Estuaries and Clean Waters Act. This bill provides critical relief to
the Long Island Sound and estuaries across the country.
Estuaries are an integral part of our environment, as well as our
economy. They give live to and provide a habitat for many important
species, they naturally cleanse our water, they provide protection
against floods and storm damage, and serve as a playground for children
and families during the summer months. The health of our nation's
estuaries are critical to the protection of our natural heritage, and
to those who make their lives off these waters.
The Long Island Sound, in particular, is one of the most complex
estuaries in the country--10 percent of the U.S. population lives
within 50 miles of the Sound and millions more flock to it for
recreation every year. It brings in more than $5 billion annually to
the regional economy from various activities--all of which require
clean water.
However, these natural jewels are in danger of being lost forever,
Estuaries are suffering from severe water quality problems, declining
habitat quality, and, in some areas, total habitat loss. More than 50
percent of wetlands in coastal states have been destroyed--an amount
equal in size to six Grand Canyons.
If you don't want to take my word on how important an estuary can be
to our communities and our economy, I invite you to visit with the
lobstermen in my district. Walk the docks with them, and listen to
their stories. We are suffering a massive lobster die-off in the Long
Island Sounds that has virtually wiped out an industry. While we are
still searching for the specific cause of the die-off, we do know that
a safer, cleaner Sound would mean that incidents like this would be
less likely to occur in the future.
This bill provides a sensible approach to a problem that has plagued
efforts to clean up our estuaries--the lack of a reliable, steady
funding source for implementing conservation and management plans.
Cleaning up estuaries cannot be piecemeal effort. This conference
report takes a step in the right direction by authorizing the Long
Island Sound Program at $200 million over five years--a significant
increase over the $3 million a year it currently receives. It takes a
comprehensive approach to fix such a complex problem.
That is why I have fought alongside Nita Lowey to pass the Water
Pollution Control and Estuary Restoration Act, which we first
introduced nearly eight years ago, and which we fought for again in the
current Congress. I want to thank all of my colleagues that have
supported this effort over the years, especially my colleagues from
Connecticut and New York, who have worked together to bring relief to
the Sound. Thank you for working together on a bipartisan approach to
fixing a non-partisan problem.
We have an obligation to protect and preserve the Sound for future
generations. It is the right thing to do for our children and for our
economy, and for men and women--like the Long Island Sound's lobstermen
that are still struggling to stay afloat. I urge the House to pass this
important legislation.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 835, the
Estuary Habitat and Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act.
I would like to thank Mr. Gilchrest for all his efforts in bringing
this bill forward.
I am thrilled that we are recognizing the critical importance of
estuaries--the diverse, thriving habitats where fresh and salt water
mix--and that this legislation will strengthen the all-important
partnerships between federal, state, and local interests for estuary
habitat restoration.
As a co-chair with Nita Lowey of the Long Island Sound Caucus, I am
particularly pleased that this legislation includes a title on Long
Island Sound Restoration.
All of us who live in the Long Island Sound region owe a debt of
gratitude to Nancy Johnson, and Rick Lazio for their sponsorship and
stewardship of the Long Island Sound Restoration Act.
Republicans and Democrats alike have worked for years on the ongoing
local-state-federal effort to restore the Sound, and know just how
important this important body of water is.
The Sound contributed over $5.5 billion to our regions economy in
1994--and obviously contributes even more today--through water-
dependent activities such as commercial and recreational fishing,
boating, and tourism.
The $40 million annual authorization for the Sound in this
legislation will make it possible to continue the progress begun six
years ago when New York and Connecticut first signed the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for long Island Sound, which in
itself was the culmination of 10 years of effort.
Since the implementation of the CCMP, our states have spent an
extraordinary amount on Long Island Sound. The federal government has
played a small, though vital role.
Today we have the opportunity to back up the promise of the CCMP with
a commitment to fund Long Island Sound restoration in line with the
Sound's place as the center of a watershed region encompassing 8
million people, with over 15 million living within 50 miles of the
Sound's shores.
This is truly an estuary of national significance and one which
deserves the support of
[[Page 24347]]
this body. I urge my colleague to vote for this excellent bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the conference report on S. 835.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
____________________
FEDERAL COURTS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2915) to make improvements in the
operation and administration of the Federal courts, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would ask
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) to explain the procedure
and what he is offering.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the request is to take S.
2915, which improves the Federal Court System by improving its
administration and procedures, eliminating operational inefficiencies,
and reducing operating expenses, and not to pass the whole bill but to
offer an amendment which will make technical corrections, strike
section 103, and make modifications to section 309.
Section 103, which I propose to strike, provides that retirement
funds contributed by the judiciary be transferred back to the
judiciary, which judges for whom the contributions were made elected to
transfer to another retirement system.
The amendment also makes modifications in section 309 which deals
with insurance programs relating to judges of the Court of Federal
Claims.
This amendment is noncontroversial.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, with that explanation, I support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 2915
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal
Courts Improvement Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
TITLE I--JUDICIAL FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 101. Extension of Judiciary Information Technology Fund.
Sec. 102. Disposition of miscellaneous fees.
Sec. 103. Transfer of retirement funds.
Sec. 104. Increase in chapter 9 bankruptcy filing fee.
Sec. 105. Increase in fee for converting a chapter 7 or chapter 13
bankruptcy case to a chapter 11 bankruptcy case.
Sec. 106. Bankruptcy fees.
TITLE II--JUDICIAL PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Sec. 201. Extension of statutory authority for magistrate judge
positions to be established in the district courts of
Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Sec. 202. Magistrate judge contempt authority.
Sec. 203. Consent to magistrate judge authority in petty offense cases
and magistrate judge authority in misdemeanor cases
involving juvenile defendants.
Sec. 204. Savings and loan data reporting requirements.
Sec. 205. Membership in circuit judicial councils.
Sec. 206. Sunset of civil justice expense and delay reduction plans.
Sec. 207. Repeal of Court of Federal Claims filing fee.
Sec. 208. Technical bankruptcy correction.
Sec. 209. Technical amendment relating to the treatment of certain
bankruptcy fees collected.
Sec. 210. Maximum amounts of compensation for attorneys.
Sec. 211. Reimbursement of expenses in defense of certain malpractice
actions.
TITLE III--JUDICIAL PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, BENEFITS, AND PROTECTIONS
Sec. 301. Judicial administrative officials retirement matters.
Sec. 302. Applicability of leave provisions to employees of the
Sentencing Commission.
Sec. 303. Payments to military survivors benefits plan.
Sec. 304. Creation of certifying officers in the judicial branch.
Sec. 305. Amendment to the jury selection process.
Sec. 306. Authorization of a circuit executive for the Federal circuit.
Sec. 307. Residence of retired judges.
Sec. 308. Recall of judges on disability status.
Sec. 309. Personnel application and insurance programs relating to
judges of the Court of Federal Claims.
Sec. 310. Lump-sum payment for accumulated and accrued leave on
separation.
Sec. 311. Employment of personal assistants for handicapped employees.
Sec. 312. Mandatory retirement age for Director of the Federal Judicial
Center.
Sec. 313. Reauthorization of certain Supreme Court Police authority.
TITLE IV--FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS
Sec. 401. Tort Claims Act amendment relating to liability of Federal
public defenders.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Extensions relating to bankruptcy administrator program.
Sec. 502. Additional place of holding court in the district of Oregon.
TITLE I--JUDICIAL FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF JUDICIARY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND.
Section 612 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``equipment'' each place it appears and
inserting ``resources'';
(2) by striking subsection (f) and redesignating
subsections (g) through (k) as subsections (f) through (j),
respectively;
(3) in subsection (g), as so redesignated, by striking
paragraph (3); and
(4) in subsection (i), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking ``Judiciary'' each place it appears and
inserting ``judiciary'';
(B) by striking ``subparagraph (c)(1)(B)'' and inserting
``subsection (c)(1)(B)''; and
(C) by striking ``under (c)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``under
subsection (c)(1)(B)''.
SEC. 102. DISPOSITION OF MISCELLANEOUS FEES.
For fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter, any
portion of miscellaneous fees collected as prescribed by the
Judicial Conference of the United States under sections 1913,
1914(b), 1926(a), 1930(b), and 1932 of title 28, United
States Code, exceeding the amount of such fees in effect on
September 30, 2000, shall be deposited into the special fund
of the Treasury established under section 1931 of title 28,
United States Code.
SEC. 103. TRANSFER OF RETIREMENT FUNDS.
Section 377 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(p) Transfer of Retirement Funds.--Upon election by a
bankruptcy judge or a magistrate judge under subsection (f)
of this section, all of the accrued employer contributions
and accrued interest on those contributions made on behalf of
the bankruptcy judge or magistrate judge to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund under section 8348 of title 5
shall be transferred to the fund established under section
1931 of this title, except that if the bankruptcy judge or
magistrate judge elects under section 2(c) of the Retirement
and Survivor's Annuities for Bankruptcy Judges and
Magistrates Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-659), to receive a
retirement annuity under both this section and title 5, only
the accrued employer contributions and accrued interest on
such contributions, made on behalf of the bankruptcy judge or
magistrate judge for service credited under this section, may
be transferred.''.
[[Page 24348]]
SEC. 104. INCREASE IN CHAPTER 9 BANKRUPTCY FILING FEE.
Section 1930(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``$300'' and inserting ``equal to the fee
specified in paragraph (3) for filing a case under chapter 11
of title 11. The amount by which the fee payable under this
paragraph exceeds $300 shall be deposited in the fund
established under section 1931 of this title''.
SEC. 105. INCREASE IN FEE FOR CONVERTING A CHAPTER 7 OR
CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY CASE TO A CHAPTER 11
BANKRUPTCY CASE.
The flush paragraph at the end of section 1930(a) of title
28, United States Code, is amended by striking ``$400'' and
inserting ``the amount equal to the difference between the
fee specified in paragraph (3) and the fee specified in
paragraph (1)''.
SEC. 106. BANKRUPTCY FEES.
Section 1930(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(7) In districts that are not part of a United States
trustee region as defined in section 581 of this title, the
Judicial Conference of the United States may require the
debtor in a case under chapter 11 of title 11 to pay fees
equal to those imposed by paragraph (6) of this subsection.
Such fees shall be deposited as offsetting receipts to the
fund established under section 1931 of this title and shall
remain available until expended.''.
TITLE II--JUDICIAL PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR MAGISTRATE
JUDGE POSITIONS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF GUAM AND THE NORTHERN
MARIANA ISLANDS.
Section 631 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the first two sentences of subsection (a)
and inserting the following: ``The judges of each United
States district court and the district courts of the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall appoint
United States magistrate judges in such numbers and to serve
at such locations within the judicial districts as the
Judicial Conference may determine under this chapter. In the
case of a magistrate judge appointed by the district court of
the Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands,
this chapter shall apply as though the court appointing such
a magistrate judge were a United States district court.'';
and
(2) by inserting in the first sentence of paragraph (1) of
subsection (b) after ``Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,'' the
following: ``the Territory of Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands,''.
SEC. 202. MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONTEMPT AUTHORITY.
Section 636(e) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(e) Contempt Authority.--
``(1) In general.--A United States magistrate judge serving
under this chapter shall have within the territorial
jurisdiction prescribed by the appointment of such magistrate
judge the power to exercise contempt authority as set forth
in this subsection.
``(2) Summary criminal contempt authority.--A magistrate
judge shall have the power to punish summarily by fine or
imprisonment such contempt of the authority of such
magistrate judge constituting misbehavior of any person in
the magistrate judge's presence so as to obstruct the
administration of justice. The order of contempt shall be
issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
``(3) Additional criminal contempt authority in civil
consent and misdemeanor cases.--In any case in which a United
States magistrate judge presides with the consent of the
parties under subsection (c) of this section, and in any
misdemeanor case proceeding before a magistrate judge under
section 3401 of title 18, the magistrate judge shall have the
power to punish, by fine or imprisonment, criminal contempt
constituting disobedience or resistance to the magistrate
judge's lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or
command. Disposition of such contempt shall be conducted upon
notice and hearing under the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
``(4) Civil contempt authority in civil consent and
misdemeanor cases.--In any case in which a United States
magistrate judge presides with the consent of the parties
under subsection (c) of this section, and in any misdemeanor
case proceeding before a magistrate judge under section 3401
of title 18, the magistrate judge may exercise the civil
contempt authority of the district court. This paragraph
shall not be construed to limit the authority of a magistrate
judge to order sanctions under any other statute, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, or the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
``(5) Criminal contempt penalties.--The sentence imposed by
a magistrate judge for any criminal contempt provided for in
paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not exceed the penalties for a
Class C misdemeanor as set forth in sections 3581(b)(8) and
3571(b)(6) of title 18.
``(6) Certification of other contempts to the district
court.--Upon the commission of any such act--
``(A) in any case in which a United States magistrate judge
presides with the consent of the parties under subsection (c)
of this section, or in any misdemeanor case proceeding before
a magistrate judge under section 3401 of title 18, that may,
in the opinion of the magistrate judge, constitute a serious
criminal contempt punishable by penalties exceeding those set
forth in paragraph (5) of this subsection; or
``(B) in any other case or proceeding under subsection (a)
or (b) of this section, or any other statute, where--
``(i) the act committed in the magistrate judge's presence
may, in the opinion of the magistrate judge, constitute a
serious criminal contempt punishable by penalties exceeding
those set forth in paragraph (5) of this subsection;
``(ii) the act that constitutes a criminal contempt occurs
outside the presence of the magistrate judge; or
``(iii) the act constitutes a civil contempt,
the magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a
district judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon any
person whose behavior is brought into question under this
paragraph, an order requiring such person to appear before a
district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that
person should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the
facts so certified. The district judge shall thereupon hear
the evidence as to the act or conduct complained of and, if
it is such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in
the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt
committed before a district judge.
``(7) Appeals of magistrate judge contempt orders.--The
appeal of an order of contempt under this subsection shall be
made to the court of appeals in cases proceeding under
subsection (c) of this section. The appeal of any other order
of contempt issued under this section shall be made to the
district court.''.
SEC. 203. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE AUTHORITY IN PETTY
OFFENSE CASES AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE AUTHORITY IN
MISDEMEANOR CASES INVOLVING JUVENILE
DEFENDANTS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--
(1) Petty offense cases.--Section 3401(b) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``that is a class
B misdemeanor charging a motor vehicle offense, a class C
misdemeanor, or an infraction,'' after ``petty offense''.
(2) Cases involving juveniles.--Section 3401(g) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
following: ``The magistrate judge may, in a petty offense
case involving a juvenile, exercise all powers granted to the
district court under chapter 403 of this title.'';
(B) in the second sentence by striking ``any other class B
or C misdemeanor case'' and inserting ``the case of any
misdemeanor, other than a petty offense,''; and
(C) by striking the last sentence.
(b) Amendments to Title 28.--Section 636(a) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (4) and
(5) and inserting in the following:
``(4) the power to enter a sentence for a petty offense;
and
``(5) the power to enter a sentence for a class A
misdemeanor in a case in which the parties have consented.''.
SEC. 204. SAVINGS AND LOAN DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 604 of title 28, United States Code, is amended in
subsection (a) by striking the second paragraph designated
(24).
SEC. 205. MEMBERSHIP IN CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCILS.
Section 332(a) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Except for the chief judge of the circuit, either
judges in regular active service or judges retired from
regular active service under section 371(b) of this title may
serve as members of the council. Service as a member of a
judicial council by a judge retired from regular active
service under section 371(b) may not be considered for
meeting the requirements of section 371(f)(1) (A), (B), or
(C).''; and
(2) in paragraph (5) by striking ``retirement,'' and
inserting ``retirement under section 371(a) or 372(a) of this
title,''.
SEC. 206. SUNSET OF CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION
PLANS.
Section 103(b)(2)(A) of the Civil Justice Reform Act of
1990 (Public Law 101-650; 104 Stat. 5096; 28 U.S.C. 471
note), as amended by Public Law 105-53 (111 Stat. 1173), is
amended by inserting ``471,'' after ``sections''.
SEC. 207. REPEAL OF COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS FILING FEE.
Section 2520 of title 28, United States Code, and the item
relating to such section in the table of contents for chapter
165 of such title, are repealed.
SEC. 208. TECHNICAL BANKRUPTCY CORRECTION.
Section 1228 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``1222(b)(10)'' each place it appears and inserting
``1222(b)(9)''.
SEC. 209. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE TREATMENT OF
CERTAIN BANKRUPTCY FEES COLLECTED.
(a) Amendment.--The first sentence of section 406(b) of the
Departments of Commerce,
[[Page 24349]]
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1990 (Public Law 101-162; 103 Stat. 1016;
28 U.S.C. 1931 note) is amended by striking ``service
enumerated after item 18'' and inserting ``service not of a
kind described in any of the items enumerated as items 1
through 7 and as items 9 through 18, as in effect on November
21, 1989,''.
(b) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by
subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to fees collected
before the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 210. MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF COMPENSATION FOR ATTORNEYS.
Section 3006A(d)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``$3,500'' and inserting ``$5,200''; and
(B) by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$1,500'';
(2) in the second sentence by striking ``$2,500'' and
inserting ``$3,700'';
(3) in the third sentence--
(A) by striking ``$750'' and inserting ``$1,200''; and
(B) by striking ``$2,500'' and inserting ``$3,900'';
(4) by inserting after the second sentence the following:
``For representation of a petitioner in a non-capital habeas
corpus proceeding, the compensation for each attorney shall
not exceed the amount applicable to a felony in this
paragraph for representation of a defendant before a judicial
officer of the district court. For representation of such
petitioner in an appellate court, the compensation for each
attorney shall not exceed the amount applicable for
representation of a defendant in an appellate court.''; and
(5) in the last sentence by striking ``$750'' and inserting
``$1,200''.
SEC. 211. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES IN DEFENSE OF CERTAIN
MALPRACTICE ACTIONS.
Section 3006A(d)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking the last sentence and inserting
``Attorneys may be reimbursed for expenses reasonably
incurred, including the costs of transcripts authorized by
the United States magistrate or the court, and the costs of
defending actions alleging malpractice of counsel in
furnishing representational services under this section. No
reimbursement for expenses in defending against malpractice
claims shall be made if a judgment of malpractice is rendered
against the counsel furnishing representational services
under this section. The United States magistrate or the court
shall make determinations relating to reimbursement of
expenses under this paragraph.''.
TITLE III--JUDICIAL PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, BENEFITS, AND PROTECTIONS
SEC. 301. JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS RETIREMENT
MATTERS.
(a) Director of Administrative Office.--Section 611 of
title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by inserting ``a congressional
employee in the capacity of primary administrative assistant
to a Member of Congress or in the capacity of staff director
or chief counsel for the majority or the minority of a
committee or subcommittee of the Senate or House of
Representatives,'' after ``Congress,'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``who has served at least fifteen years
and'' and inserting ``who has at least fifteen years of
service and has''; and
(B) in the first undesignated paragraph, by striking ``who
has served at least ten years,'' and inserting ``who has at
least ten years of service,''; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``served at least fifteen years,'' and
inserting ``at least fifteen years of service,''; and
(B) by striking ``served less than fifteen years,'' and
inserting ``less than fifteen years of service,''.
(b) Director of the Federal Judicial Center.--Section 627
of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by inserting ``a congressional
employee in the capacity of primary administrative assistant
to a Member of Congress or in the capacity of staff director
or chief counsel for the majority or the minority of a
committee or subcommittee of the Senate or House of
Representatives,'' after ``Congress,'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``who has served at least fifteen years
and'' and inserting ``who has at least fifteen years of
service and has''; and
(B) in the first undesignated paragraph, by striking ``who
has served at least ten years,'' and inserting ``who has at
least ten years of service,''; and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``served at least fifteen years,'' and
inserting ``at least fifteen years of service,''; and
(B) by striking ``served less than fifteen years,'' and
inserting ``less than fifteen years of service,''.
SEC. 302. APPLICABILITY OF LEAVE PROVISIONS TO EMPLOYEES OF
THE SENTENCING COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--Section 996(b) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by striking all after ``title 5,'' and
inserting ``except the following: chapters 45 (Incentive
Awards), 63 (Leave), 81 (Compensation for Work Injuries), 83
(Retirement), 85 (Unemployment Compensation), 87 (Life
Insurance), and 89 (Health Insurance), and subchapter VI of
chapter 55 (Payment for accumulated and accrued leave).''.
(b) Savings Provision.--Any leave that an individual
accrued or accumulated (or that otherwise became available to
such individual) under the leave system of the United States
Sentencing Commission and that remains unused as of the date
of the enactment of this Act shall, on and after such date,
be treated as leave accrued or accumulated (or that otherwise
became available to such individual) under chapter 63 of
title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 303. PAYMENTS TO MILITARY SURVIVORS BENEFITS PLAN.
Section 371(e) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after ``such retired or retainer pay'' the
following: ``, except such pay as is deductible from the
retired or retainer pay as a result of participation in any
survivor's benefits plan in connection with the retired
pay,''.
SEC. 304. CREATION OF CERTIFYING OFFICERS IN THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH.
(a) Appointment of Disbursing and Certifying Officers.--
Chapter 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 613. Disbursing and certifying officers
``(a) Disbursing Officers.--The Director may designate in
writing officers and employees of the judicial branch of the
Government, including the courts as defined in section 610
other than the Supreme Court, to be disbursing officers in
such numbers and locations as the Director considers
necessary. Such disbursing officers shall--
``(1) disburse moneys appropriated to the judicial branch
and other funds only in strict accordance with payment
requests certified by the Director or in accordance with
subsection (b);
``(2) examine payment requests as necessary to ascertain
whether they are in proper form, certified, and approved; and
``(3) be held accountable for their actions as provided by
law, except that such a disbursing officer shall not be held
accountable or responsible for any illegal, improper, or
incorrect payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or
misleading certificate for which a certifying officer is
responsible under subsection (b).
``(b) Certifying Officers.--
``(1) In general.--The Director may designate in writing
officers and employees of the judicial branch of the
Government, including the courts as defined in section 610
other than the Supreme Court, to certify payment requests
payable from appropriations and funds. Such certifying
officers shall be responsible and accountable for--
``(A) the existence and correctness of the facts recited in
the certificate or other request for payment or its
supporting papers;
``(B) the legality of the proposed payment under the
appropriation or fund involved; and
``(C) the correctness of the computations of certified
payment requests.
``(2) Liability.--The liability of a certifying officer
shall be enforced in the same manner and to the same extent
as provided by law with respect to the enforcement of the
liability of disbursing and other accountable officers. A
certifying officer shall be required to make restitution to
the United States for the amount of any illegal, improper, or
incorrect payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or
misleading certificates made by the certifying officer, as
well as for any payment prohibited by law or which did not
represent a legal obligation under the appropriation or fund
involved.
``(c) Rights.--A certifying or disbursing officer--
``(1) has the right to apply for and obtain a decision by
the Comptroller General on any question of law involved in a
payment request presented for certification; and
``(2) is entitled to relief from liability arising under
this section in accordance with title 31.
``(d) Other Authority Not Affected.--Nothing in this
section affects the authority of the courts with respect to
moneys deposited with the courts under chapter 129 of this
title.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``613. Disbursing and certifying officers.''.
(c) Rule of Construction.--The amendment made by subsection
(a) shall not be construed to authorize the hiring of any
Federal officer or employee.
(d) Duties of Director.--Section 604(a)(8) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(8) Disburse appropriations and other funds for the
maintenance and operation of the courts;''.
SEC. 305. AMENDMENT TO THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS.
Section 1865 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``or the clerk under
supervision of the court if the court's jury selection plan
so authorizes,'' after ``jury commission,''; and
(2) in subsection (b) by inserting ``or the clerk if the
court's jury selection plan so provides,'' after ``may
provide,''.
[[Page 24350]]
SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATION OF A CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE FOR THE
FEDERAL CIRCUIT.
Section 332 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(h)(1) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit may appoint a circuit executive, who shall serve at
the pleasure of the court. In appointing a circuit executive,
the court shall take into account experience in
administrative and executive positions, familiarity with
court procedures, and special training. The circuit executive
shall exercise such administrative powers and perform such
duties as may be delegated by the court. The duties delegated
to the circuit executive may include the duties specified in
subsection (e) of this section, insofar as such duties are
applicable to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
``(2) The circuit executive shall be paid the salary for
circuit executives established under subsection (f) of this
section.
``(3) The circuit executive may appoint, with the approval
of the court, necessary employees in such number as may be
approved by the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts.
``(4) The circuit executive and staff shall be deemed to be
officers and employees of the United States within the
meaning of the statutes specified in subsection (f)(4).
``(5) The court may appoint either a circuit executive
under this subsection or a clerk under section 711 of this
title, but not both, or may appoint a combined circuit
executive/clerk who shall be paid the salary of a circuit
executive.''.
SEC. 307. RESIDENCE OF RETIRED JUDGES.
Section 175 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Retired judges of the Court of Federal Claims are not
subject to restrictions as to residence. The place where a
retired judge maintains the actual abode in which such judge
customarily lives shall be deemed to be the judge's official
duty station for the purposes of section 456 of this
title.''.
SEC. 308. RECALL OF JUDGES ON DISABILITY STATUS.
Section 797(a) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Any judge of the Court of Federal Claims receiving an
annuity under section 178(c) of this title (pertaining to
disability) who, in the estimation of the chief judge, has
recovered sufficiently to render judicial service, shall be
known and designated as a senior judge and may perform duties
as a judge when recalled under subsection (b) of this
section.''.
SEC. 309. PERSONNEL APPLICATION AND INSURANCE PROGRAMS
RELATING TO JUDGES OF THE COURT OF FEDERAL
CLAIMS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 178 the following:
``Sec. 179. Personnel application and insurance programs
``(a) For purposes of construing and applying title 5, a
judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims shall be
deemed to be an `officer' under section 2104(a) of such
title.
``(b) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 89 of
title 5, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims
who--
``(1) is retired under section 178 of this title; and
``(2) was enrolled in a health benefits plan under chapter
89 of title 5 at the time the judge became a retired judge,
shall be deemed to be an annuitant meeting the requirements
of section 8905(b)(1) of title 5, notwithstanding the length
of enrollment prior to the date of retirement.
``(c) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of
title 5, including any adjustment of insurance rates by
regulation or otherwise, a judge of the United States Court
of Federal Claims in regular active service or who is retired
under section 178 of this title shall be deemed to be a judge
of the United States described under section 8701(a)(5) of
title 5.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 7 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 179 and
inserting the following:
``179. Personnel application and insurance programs.''.
SEC. 310. LUMP-SUM PAYMENT FOR ACCUMULATED AND ACCRUED LEAVE
ON SEPARATION.
Section 5551(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
in the first sentence by striking ``or elects'' and inserting
``, is transferred to a position described under section
6301(2)(xiii) of this title, or elects''.
SEC. 311. EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONAL ASSISTANTS FOR HANDICAPPED
EMPLOYEES.
Section 3102(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'';
(2) in subparagraph (B) by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) an office, agency, or other establishment in the
judicial branch;''.
SEC. 312. MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE FOR DIRECTOR OF THE
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER.
(a) In General.--Section 627 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) through (f) as
subsections (a) through (e), respectively.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 376 of
title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(D) by striking ``subsection (b)'' and
inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(D) by striking ``subsection (c) or
(d)'' and inserting ``subsection (b) or (c)''.
SEC. 313. REAUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN SUPREME COURT POLICE
AUTHORITY.
Section 9(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act relating to the
policing of the building and grounds of the Supreme Court of
the United States'', approved August 18, 1949 (40 U.S.C.
13n(c)) is amended in the first sentence by striking ``2000''
and inserting ``2004''.
TITLE IV--FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS
SEC. 401. TORT CLAIMS ACT AMENDMENT RELATING TO LIABILITY OF
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS.
Section 2671 of title 28, United States Code, is amended in
the second undesignated paragraph--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``includes''; and
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, and (2) any officer or employee of a Federal
public defender organization, except when such officer or
employee performs professional services in the course of
providing representation under section 3006A of title 18.''.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. EXTENSIONS RELATING TO BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR
PROGRAM.
Section 302(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States
Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (28 U.S.C.
581 note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), in the matter following clause
(ii), by striking ``or October 1, 2002, whichever occurs
first''; and
(2) in subparagraph (F)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) in subclause (II), by striking ``or October 1, 2002,
whichever occurs first''; and
(ii) in the matter following subclause (II), by striking
``October 1, 2003, or''; and
(B) in clause (ii), in the matter following subclause
(II)--
(i) by striking ``before October 1, 2003, or''; and
(ii) by striking ``, whichever occurs first''.
SEC. 502. ADDITIONAL PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN THE DISTRICT
OF OREGON.
Section 117 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``Eugene'' and inserting ``Eugene or Springfield''.
Amendments Offered by Mr. Coble
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Coble:
Strike section 103 and redesignate the remaining sections
accordingly.
In section 636(e)(6) of title 28, United States Code, as
inserted by section 202 of the bill, strike the semicolons in
subparagraph (A) and in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph
(B) and insert commas.
In section 179 of title 28, United States Code, as inserted
by section 309(a) of the bill, strike subsection (b) and
insert the following:
``(b)(1)(A) For purposes of construing and applying chapter
89 of title 5, a judge of the United States Court of Federal
Claims who--
``(i) is retired under subsection (b) of section 178 of
this title, and
``(ii) at the time of becoming such a retired judge--
``(I) was enrolled in a health benefits plan under chapter
89 of title 5, but
``(II) did not satisfy the requirements of section
8905(b)(1) of title 5 (relating to eligibility to continue
enrollment as an annuitant),
shall be deemed to be an annuitant meeting the requirements
of section 8905(b)(1) of title 5, in accordance with the
succeeding provisions of this paragraph, if the judge gives
timely written notification to the chief judge of the court
that the judge is willing to be called upon to perform
judicial duties under section 178(d) of this title during the
period of continued eligibility for enrollment, as described
in subparagraph (B)(ii) or (C)(ii) (whichever applies).
``(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C)--
``(i) in order to be eligible for continued enrollment
under this paragraph, notification under subparagraph (A)
shall be made before the first day of the open enrollment
period preceding the calendar year referred to in clause
(ii)(II); and
``(ii) if such notification is timely made, the retired
judge shall be eligible for continued enrollment under this
paragraph for the period--
``(I) beginning on the date on which eligibility would
otherwise cease, and
``(II) ending on the last day of the calendar year next
beginning after the end of the open enrollment period
referred to in clause (i).
``(C) For purposes of applying this paragraph for the first
time in the case of any particular judge--
``(i) subparagraph (B)(i) shall be applied by substituting
`the expiration of the term of
[[Page 24351]]
office of the judge' for the matter following `before'; and
``(ii)(I) if the term of office of such judge expires
before the first day of the open enrollment period referred
to in subparagraph (B)(i), the period of continued
eligibility for enrollment shall be as described in
subparagraph (B)(ii); but
``(II) if the term of office of such judge expires on or
after the first day of the open enrollment period referred to
in subparagraph (B)(i), the period of continued eligibility
shall not end until the last day of the calendar year next
beginning after the end of the next full open enrollment
period beginning after the date on which the term expires.
``(2) In the event that a retired judge remains enrolled
under chapter 89 of title 5 for a period of 5 consecutive
years by virtue of paragraph (1) (taking into account only
periods of coverage as an active judge immediately before
retirement and as a retired judge pursuant to paragraph (1)),
then, effective as of the day following the last day of that
5-year period--
``(A) the provisions of chapter 89 of title 5 shall be
applied as if such judge had satisfied the requirements of
section 8905(b)(1) on the last day of such period; and
``(B) the provisions of paragraph (1) shall cease to apply.
``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `open
enrollment period' refers to a period described in section
8905(g)(1) of title 5.
In section 310, strike ``6301(2)(xiii)'' and insert
``6301(2)(B)(xiii)''.
In section 501, strike paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert
the following:
(1) in subparagraph (A), in the matter following clause
(ii), by striking ``or October 1, 2002, whichever occurs
first,''; and
(2) in subparagraph (F)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) in subclause (II), by striking ``or October 1, 2002,
whichever occurs first''; and
(ii) in the matter following subclause (II)--
(I) by striking ``October 1, 2003, or''; and
(II) by striking ``, whichever occurs first''; and
(B) in clause (ii), in the matter following subclause
(II)--
(i) by striking ``October 1, 2003, or''; and
(ii) by striking ``, whichever occurs first''.
Amend the table of contents accordingly.
Mr. COBLE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendments offered by
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
The amendments were agreed to.
The Senate bill, as amended, was ordered to be read a third time, was
read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
____________________
BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT ACT OF 2000
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2413) to amend the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify the procedures and
conditions for the award of matching grants for the purchase of armor
vests, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I ask the
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) to explain the
purpose of his request.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, S. 2413, the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Act of 2000, is identical to its House counterpart
H.R. 4033, which passed the House on January 26, 2000, by a margin of
413-3.
This legislation will reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Program through fiscal year 2004. It will increase the authorized
funding to $50 million per year and guarantee that smaller
jurisdictions receive full funding available under the program.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for
making that inquiry.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, with that explanation, I support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 2413
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 ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the number of law enforcement officers who are killed
in the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law
enforcement officer in the United States had the protection
of an armor vest;
(2) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, 709 law
enforcement officers in the United States were killed in the
line of duty;
(3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the
risk of fatality to law enforcement officers while not
wearing an armor vest is 14 times higher than for officers
wearing an armor vest;
(4) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, bullet-
resistant materials helped save the lives of more than 2,000
law enforcement officers in the United States; and
(5) the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law
Enforcement Improvements reports that violent crime in Indian
country has risen sharply, despite a decrease in the national
crime rate, and has concluded that there is a ``public safety
crisis in Indian country''.
SEC. 3. MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR
VESTS.
(a) Matching Funds.--Section 2501(f) of part Y of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796ll(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The portion'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The portion'';
(2) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and all that follows
through the period at the end of the first sentence and
inserting ``subsection (a)--
``(A) may not exceed 50 percent; and
``(B) shall equal 50 percent, if--
``(i) such grant is to a unit of local government with
fewer than 100,000 residents;
``(ii) the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance
determines that the quantity of vests to be purchased with
such grant is reasonable; and
``(iii) such portion does not cause such grant to violate
the requirements of subsection (e).''; and
(3) by striking ``Any funds'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Indian assistance.--Any funds''.
(b) Allocation of Funds.--Section 2501(g) of part Y of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll(g)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Allocation of Funds.--Funds available under this part
shall be awarded, without regard to subsection (c), to each
qualifying unit of local government with fewer than 100,000
residents. Any remaining funds available under this part
shall be awarded to other qualifying applicants.''.
(c) Applications.--Section 2502 of part Y of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3796ll-1) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Applications in Conjunction With Purchases.--If an
application under this section is submitted in conjunction
with a transaction for the purchase of armor vests, grant
amounts under this section may not be used to fund any
portion of that purchase unless, before the application is
submitted, the applicant--
``(1) receives clear and conspicuous notice that receipt of
the grant amounts requested in the application is uncertain;
and
``(2) expressly assumes the obligation to carry out the
transaction, regardless of whether such amounts are
received.''.
(d) Definition of Armor Vest.--Section 2503(1) of part Y of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll-2(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``means body armor'' and inserting the
following: ``means--
``(A) body armor'';
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) body armor that has been tested through the voluntary
compliance testing program, and found to meet or exceed the
requirements of NIJ Standard 0115.00, or any revision of such
standard;''.
(e) Interim Definition of Armor Vest.--For purposes of part
Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968, as amended by this Act, the meaning of the term
``armor vest'' (as defined in section 2503 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 37966ll-2)) shall, until the date on which a final NIJ
Standard 0115.00 is first fully approved and implemented,
also include body armor which has been found to meet or
exceed the requirements for protection against stabbing
established by the State in which the grantee is located.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(23)
of title I of the Omnibus
[[Page 24352]]
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3793(a)(23)) is amended by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``, and $50,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2004''.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
PRESIDENTIAL THREAT PROTECTION ACT OF 2000
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3048) to amend section 879 of title 18,
United States Code, to provide clearer coverage over threats against
former Presidents and members of their families, and for other
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendments numbered 2 and 4, concur in Senate amendments numbered 1 and
3, and concur in Senate amendment numbered 5, with an amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, and the House amendment to the
Senate amendment, as follows:
Senate Amendments:
Page 3, strike out lines 19 through 24 and insert:
``(e)(1) When directed by the President, the United States
Secret Service is authorized to participate, under the
direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, in the planning,
coordination, and implementation of security operations at
special events of national significance, as determined by the
President.
``(2) At the end of each fiscal year, the President through
such agency or office as the President may designate, shall
report to the Congress--
``(A) what events, if any, were designated special events
of national significance for security purposes under
paragraph (1); and
``(B) the criteria and information used in making each
designation.''.
Page 7, line 6, after ``offense'' insert: or apprehension
of a fugitive
Page 8, strike out lines 17 through 19
Page 9, strike out line 14 and insert:
issuance.
``(11) With respect to subpoenas issued under paragraph
(1)(A)(i)(III), the Attorney General shall issue guidelines
governing the issuance of administrative subpoenas pursuant
to that paragraph. The guidelines required by this paragraph
shall mandate that administrative subpoenas may be issued
only after review and approval of senior supervisory
personnel within the respective investigative agency or
component of the Department of Justice and of the United
States Attorney for the judicial district in which the
administrative subpoena shall be served.''.
Page 10, after line 8, insert:
SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS TO APPREHEND FUGITIVES.
(a) Authority of Attorney General.--Section 3486(a)(1) of
title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 5 of this
Act is further amended in subparagraph (A)(i)--
(1) by striking ``offense or'' and inserting ``offense,'';
and
(2) by inserting ``or (III) with respect to the
apprehension of a fugitive,'' after ``children,''.
(b) Additional Basis for Nondisclosure Order.--Section
3486(a)(6) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
section 5 of this Act, is further amended in subparagraph
(B)--
(1) by striking ``or'' and the end of clause (iii);
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or
undue delay of a trial.''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 3486 of title 18, as amended by
section 5 of this Act, is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(g) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `fugitive' means a person who--
``(A) having been accused by complaint, information, or
indictment under Federal law of a serious violent felony or
serious drug offense, or having been convicted under Federal
law of committing a serious violent felony or serious drug
offense, flees or attempts to flee from, or evades or
attempts to evade the jurisdiction of the court with
jurisdiction over the felony;
``(B) having been accused by complaint, information, or
indictment under State law of a serious violent felony or
serious drug offense, or having been convicted under State
law of committing a serious violent felony or serious drug
offense, flees or attempts to flee from, or evades or
attempts to evade, the jurisdiction of the court with
jurisdiction over the felony;
``(C) escapes from lawful Federal or State custody after
having been accused by complaint, information, or indictment
of a serious violent felony or serious drug offense or having
been convicted of committing a serious violent felony or
serious drug offense; or
``(D) is in violation of subparagraph (2) or (3) of the
first undesignated paragraph of section 1073;
``(2) the terms `serious violent felony' and `serious drug
offense' shall have the meanings given those terms in section
3559(c)(2) of this title; and
``(3) the term `investigation' means, with respect to a
State fugitive described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of
paragraph (1), an investigation in which there is reason to
believe that the fugitive fled from or evaded, or attempted
to flee from or evade, the jurisdiction of the court, or
escaped from custody, in or affecting, or using any facility
of, interstate or foreign commerce, or as to whom an
appropriate law enforcement officer or official of a State or
political subdivision has requested the Attorney General to
assist in the investigation, and the Attorney General finds
that the particular circumstances of the request give rise to
a Federal interest sufficient for the exercise of Federal
jurisdiction pursuant to section 1075.''.
SEC. 7. FUGITIVE APPREHENSION TASK FORCES.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, upon
consultation with appropriate Department of Justice and
Department of the Treasury law enforcement components,
establish permanent Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces
consisting of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
authorities in designated regions of the United States, to be
directed and coordinated by the United States Marshals
Service, for the purpose of locating and apprehending
fugitives.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Attorney General for the United
States Marshals Service to carry out the provisions of this
section $30,000,000 for the fiscal year 2001, $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(c) Other Existing Applicable Law.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to limit any existing authority under any
other provision of Federal or State law for law enforcement
agencies to locate or apprehend fugitives through task forces
or any other means.
SEC. 8. STUDY AND REPORTS ON ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS.
(a) Study on Use of Administrative Subpoenas.--Not later
than December 31, 2001, the Attorney General, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall complete a study on
the use of administrative subpoena power by executive branch
agencies or entities and shall report the findings to the
Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. Such report shall include--
(1) a description of the sources of administrative subpoena
power and the scope of such subpoena power within executive
branch agencies;
(2) a description of applicable subpoena enforcement
mechanisms;
(3) a description of any notification provisions and any
other provisions relating to safeguarding privacy interests;
(4) a description of the standards governing the issuance
of administrative subpoenas; and
(5) recommendations from the Attorney General regarding
necessary steps to ensure that administrative subpoena power
is used and enforced consistently and fairly by executive
branch agencies.
(b) Report on Frequency of Use of Administrative
Subpoenas.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General and the Secretary of
the Treasury shall report in January of each year to the
Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the number of administrative subpoenas
issued by them under this section, whether each matter
involved a fugitive from Federal or State charges, and the
identity of the agency or component of the Department of
Justice or the Department of the Treasury issuing the
subpoena and imposing the charges.
(2) Expiration.--The reporting requirement of this
subsection shall terminate in 3 years after the date of
enactment of this section.
__
House amendment to Senate amendment No. 5:
In lieu of the matter inserted by the Senate amendment
numbered 5, insert the following:
SEC. 6. FUGITIVE APPREHENSION TASK FORCES.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, upon
consultation with appropriate Department of Justice and
Department of the Treasury law enforcement components,
establish permanent Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces
consisting of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
authorities in designated regions of the United States, to be
directed and coordinated by the United States Marshals
Service, for the purpose of locating and apprehending
fugitives.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Attorney General for the United
States Marshals Service to carry out the provisions of this
section $30,000,000 for the fiscal year 2001, $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
(c) Other Existing Applicable Law.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to limit any existing authority under any
other provision of Federal or State law for law enforcement
agencies to locate or apprehend fugitives through task forces
or any other means.
SEC. 7. STUDY AND REPORTS ON ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS.
(a) Study on Use of Administrative Subpoenas.--Not later
than December 31, 2001, the Attorney General, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall complete a study on
the use of administrative subpoena power by executive branch
agencies or entities and shall report the findings to the
Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. Such report shall include--
(1) a description of the sources of administrative subpoena
power and the scope of such
[[Page 24353]]
subpoena power within executive branch agencies;
(2) a description of applicable subpoena enforcement
mechanisms;
(3) a description of any notification provisions and any
other provisions relating to safeguarding privacy interests;
(4) a description of the standards governing the issuance
of administrative subpoenas; and
(5) recommendations from the Attorney General regarding
necessary steps to ensure that administrative subpoena power
is used and enforced consistently and fairly by executive
branch agencies.
(b) Report on Frequency of Use of Administrative
Subpoenas.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General and the Secretary of
the Treasury shall report in January of each year to the
Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of
Representatives on the number of administrative subpoenas
issued by them under this section and the identity of the
agency or component of the Department of Justice or the
Department of the Treasury issuing the subpoena and imposing
the charges.
(2) Expiration.--The reporting requirement of this
subsection shall terminate in 3 years after the date of
enactment of this section.
Mr. HUTCHINSON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate amendments be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the initial request of
the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would ask
the gentleman to explain the purpose of his request and the amendments
that are being proposed.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3048, the Presidential Threat
Protection Act of 2000 passed the House by voice vote on June 26 of
this year.
The bill was introduced by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), to clarify the authority of
the Secret Service to protect the President, former Presidents and
their families, and candidates for the Office of President and Vice
President and their families.
When this bill was considered in the other body, provisions were
added that would have authorized the Attorney General to issue
administrative subpoenas, principally through the U.S. Marshal Service
in connection with investigations of fugitives from justice.
These provisions have caused considerable concern in the House, and
in response to those concerns the unanimous consent request that I am
making today will strike all of the provisions dealing with the
administrative subpoenas in fugitive cases.
The unanimous request retains a provision from the Senate amendment
to the underlying bill that requires the Attorney General to establish
and fund fugitive apprehension task forces which are comprised of
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies who work together to
catch Federal and State fugitives.
Mr. Speaker, task forces such as these, led by the FBI with respect
to violent crimes generally and led by the Marshals Service in fugitive
cases, have proven effective over the years and should be continued.
The Attorney General retains the discretion as to where these task
forces should be located; however, we believe that fugitive task forces
created under this provision should not be located in places where they
might overlap with existing FBI violent crime task forces.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the unanimous consent requests that I am making
today retain two minor amendments to the underlying Secret Service bill
requested by the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this bill first passed the House by
voice vote. The provisions added by the Senate that have caused concern
here in the House will be deleted by my request. It is vitally
important to the protective operation of the Secret Service that the
remaining portions of this bill, the provisions that have passed
without opposition, be enacted into law.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, based on the explanation, particularly in
light of the disagreement to Senate amendments numbered 2 and 4, and
the other amendments I do agree with, I support their concurrence.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the initial request of
the gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
DAIRY MARKET ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2773) to amend the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 to enhance dairy markets through dairy product
mandatory reporting, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 2773
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 ``Dairy Market Enhancement Act
of 2000''.
SEC. 2. DAIRY PRODUCT MANDATORY REPORTING.
The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle C--Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting
``SEC. 271. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of this subtitle is to establish a program of
information regarding the marketing of dairy products that--
``(1) provides information that can be readily understood
by producers and other market participants, including
information with respect to prices, quantities sold, and
inventories of dairy products;
``(2) improves the price and supply reporting services of
the Department of Agriculture; and
``(3) encourages competition in the marketplace for dairy
products.
``SEC. 272. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subtitle:
``(1) Dairy products.--The term `dairy products' means
manufactured dairy products that are used by the Secretary to
establish minimum prices for Class III and Class IV milk
under a Federal milk marketing order issued under section 8c
of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted
with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
of 1937.
``(2) Manufacturer.--The term `manufacturer' means any
person engaged in the business of buying milk in commerce for
the purpose of manufacturing dairy products.
``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
``SEC. 273. MANDATORY REPORTING FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
program of mandatory dairy product information reporting that
will--
``(1) provide timely, accurate, and reliable market
information;
``(2) facilitate more informed marketing decisions; and
``(3) promote competition in the dairy product
manufacturing industry.
``(b) Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--In establishing the program, the
Secretary shall only--
``(A)(i) subject to the conditions described in paragraph
(2), require each manufacturer to report to the Secretary
information concerning the price, quantity, and moisture
content of dairy products sold by the manufacturer; and
``(ii) modify the format used to provide the information on
the day before the date of enactment of this subtitle to
ensure that the information can be readily understood by
market participants; and
``(B) require each manufacturer and other person storing
dairy products to report to the Secretary, at a periodic
interval determined by the Secretary, information on the
quantity of dairy products stored.
``(2) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in paragraph
(1)(A)(i) are that--
``(A) the information referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is
required only with respect to those package sizes actually
used to establish minimum prices for Class III or Class IV
milk under a Federal milk marketing order;
``(B) the information referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is
required only to the extent that the information is actually
used to establish minimum prices for Class III or Class
[[Page 24354]]
IV milk under a Federal milk marketing order;
``(C) the frequency of the required reporting under
paragraph (1)(A)(i) does not exceed the frequency used to
establish minimum prices for Class III or Class IV milk under
a Federal milk marketing order; and
``(D) the Secretary may exempt from all reporting
requirements any manufacturer that processes and markets less
than 1,000,000 pounds of dairy products per year.
``(c) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to ensure compliance with, and
otherwise carry out, this subtitle.
``(2) Confidentiality.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise directed by the
Secretary or the Attorney General for enforcement purposes,
no officer, employee, or agent of the United States shall
make available to the public information, statistics, or
documents obtained from or submitted by any person under this
subtitle other than in a manner that ensures that
confidentiality is preserved regarding the identity of
persons, including parties to a contract, and proprietary
business information.
``(B) Relation to other requirements.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no facts or information obtained
under this subtitle shall be disclosed in accordance with
section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
``(3) Verification.--The Secretary shall take such actions
as the Secretary considers necessary to verify the accuracy
of the information submitted or reported under this subtitle.
``(4) Enforcement.--
``(A) Unlawful act.--It shall be unlawful and a violation
of this subtitle for any person subject to this subtitle to
willfully fail or refuse to provide, or delay the timely
reporting of, accurate information to the Secretary in
accordance with this subtitle.
``(B) Order.--After providing notice and an opportunity for
a hearing to affected persons, the Secretary may issue an
order against any person to cease and desist from continuing
any violation of this subtitle.
``(C) Appeal.--
``(i) In general.--The order of the Secretary under
subparagraph (B) shall be final and conclusive unless an
affected person files an appeal of the order of the Secretary
in United States district court not later than 30 days after
the date of the issuance of the order.
``(ii) Findings.--A finding of the Secretary under this
paragraph shall be set aside only if the finding is found to
be unsupported by substantial evidence.
``(D) Noncompliance with order.--
``(i) In general.--If a person subject to this subtitle
fails to obey an order issued under this paragraph after the
order has become final and unappealable, or after the
appropriate United States district court has entered a final
judgment in favor of the Secretary, the United States may
apply to the appropriate United States district court for
enforcement of the order.
``(ii) Enforcement.--If the court determines that the order
was lawfully made and duly served and that the person
violated the order, the court shall enforce the order.
``(iii) Civil penalty.--If the court finds that the person
violated the order, the person shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not more than $10,000 for each offense.
``(5) Fees.--The Secretary shall not charge or assess a
user fee, transaction fee, service charge, assessment,
reimbursement fee, or any other fee under this subtitle for--
``(A) the submission or reporting of information;
``(B) the receipt or availability of, or access to,
published reports or information; or
``(C) any other activity required under this subtitle.
``(6) Recordkeeping.--Each person required to report
information to the Secretary under this subtitle shall
maintain, and make available to the Secretary, on request,
original contracts, agreements, receipts, and other records
associated with the sale or storage of any dairy products
during the 2-year period beginning on the date of the
creation of the records.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to share my strong support for
S. 2773--the Dairy Marketing Enhancement Act of 2000. To our nation's
dairy farmers this legislation is commonly referred to as the mandatory
price reporting bill. This legislation was passed by the Senate earlier
today. Identical legislation, H.R. 5495, was introduced by myself,
Congressman Simpson and others. This legislation is urgently needed to
restore producer confidence in the dairy market following recent cheese
and butter price/inventory reporting fiascoes that sent markets
plunging.
As my colleagues who represent dairy farmers know, recent reporting
errors in cheese and butter stocks have highlighted the need to make
reporting of storable dairy products mandatory, verifiable and
enforceable. A Chicago Mercantile Exchange warehouse reporting error
resulted in a sizable inventory adjustment and caused a 10 cent drop in
the double a butter price.
This latest inventory reporting error came less than a year after a
similar error with the U.S. Department of Agriculture cheese inventory.
Following that reporting error cheese prices dropped within a week to
their lowest levels in almost a decade. These events have caused a
great deal of concern among our nation's dairy producers.
Under current law, manufacturers of dairy products voluntarily
provide the USDA with the amount and price of dairy commodities (cheese
and butter) that the manufacturer has sold during a given month.
This information is then used by the USDA to establish the minimum
monthly prices under the federal milk marketing order system. This
legislation will foster a more accurate price and inventory reporting
system for dairy products and enable farmers to base business decisions
on the most accurate information.
By requiring mandatory reporting, dairy producers will be given more
accurate, complete and timely market information. This information will
lead to a better price discovery for all dairy products and allow
producers and other market participants to make fully informed business
decisions with respect to the marketing of raw milk.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the calender year, dairy farmers
have experienced excruciating low milk prices. These inhospitable
market conditions have resulted in the loss of 3-to-4 family dairy
farmers in my home state of Wisconsin each day. With the loss of these
farmers, the economies of our rural communities are also placed under
extreme financial pressure.
While this legislation is no panacea for ailing milk prices, it will
go a long way in improving prevailing attitude and restore some much
needed optimism.
It is for this reason that I ask all of my colleagues to join me in
passing this simple but important piece of legislation.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2733. The
bill represents a consensus among processor and producer groups. It
will benefit the entire industry.
Mr. Speaker, under recently reformed Federal milk marketing orders,
monthly minimum prices are determined based on market prices for
manufactured dairy products, including nonfat dry milk, butter, cheddar
cheese, and whey. USDA determines those product prices by surveying
manufacturers. The responses are voluntary and USDA has limited
authority to verify accuracy.
Mr. Speaker, because the determination of accurate market prices is
key to establishing milk orders that are reflective of supply and
demand, processors have agreed to subject themselves to the
requirements that will result from the passage of this bill. The bill
requires that USDA use the current survey format as a starting point
for mandating reporting. For many processors, this will mean that
little will change with the establishment of the mandatory program.
Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure accuracy, the bill allows the
Secretary to require that reporting companies make their records
available for Department audit. Any willful and intentional violation
of requirements to make accurate and timely reports is punishable by a
civil fine of up to $20,000 under the terms of the bill.
The bill also requires that USDA guard the confidentiality of
information from each reporting company.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 2733.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on S. 2773.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
____________________
{time} 1815
[[Page 24355]]
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, and under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
THANKING THE PEOPLE OF THE 12TH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FOR THE HONOR TO
SERVE IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, some time in the next few days,
the last vote of the 106th Congress will be cast. For those of us who
will not be returning next year, that vote will mark the end of our
legislative career.
Mr. Speaker, 260 years ago, Samuel Johnson wrote of those ``points of
time where one course of action ends and another begins,'' times when
``we are forced to say of something, `this is the last.' ''
For those of us who will soon end our course as Members of Congress
and begin some new endeavor, the sense of the honor it is to serve here
is felt more keenly now than ever before. As I approach the point in
time when I am forced to say with the vote I cast that this is the
last, I wish to express my thanks to the people of the twelfth district
of Florida for giving me the opportunity to serve as their
representative over the last 8 years.
What a great privilege it is to serve in this House and to
participate in the great American enterprise of government by
reflection and choice. What an awesome privilege it is to be chosen to
come from the communities we represent to this House and to take on the
responsibilities imposed by our oath of office: the responsibility to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; the responsibility to bear true and
faithful allegiance to that Constitution; and the responsibility to
well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which we
enter. I will always be humbled by the knowledge that the people of the
district I represent had the confidence in me to entrust me with these
important responsibilities.
God has blessed our Nation in many ways. It has been a single
blessing for the people of the United States to have a Constitution, a
Constitution which has indeed secured for us the blessings of liberty.
Among the chief objects of our Constitution was to establish justice.
The work of this House involves many mundane issues of passing
significance. Much that takes place here will not long be remembered,
but when we act to further the constitutional goal of establishing
justice, we deal with matters of enduring significance.
As Members of this House, we can come to stand and to speak in this
Chamber. We can rise in this place to speak against injustice; and when
truth stumbles in the public square, we can sound a warning that in our
life as a people, as well as in our individual lives, nothing is more
important than the truth. We can sound a warning that justice is in
peril whenever the truth is not respected. As Members, on occasion we
have the privilege to stand here in defense of the powerless and to
speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. The value of the
opportunity to do such things is inestimable.
To all those who have made it possible for me to serve as a Member of
this House, I owe a great debt of gratitude, a debt of gratitude which
I do not have the words to express as I would like. I can simply say,
thank you for allowing me to be your Congressman.
____________________
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk for just a
few minutes about an issue that is critical not only to my district,
but to communities and children all across this country. This issue is
school construction. I am pleased that several of my Democratic
colleagues have agreed to join me this evening to talk about school
construction and other priorities in the Democrats' education agenda. I
shall restrict my remarks mostly to school construction.
Today is October 25. The fiscal year started October 1; and yet, the
Republican leadership of this House has failed to do its work and get
the work done for the American people. To put it in school terms, they
are tardy and they are incomplete. They have failed the test of
leadership for the American people. Today, the House passed a stopgap
spending measure to keep the government from shutting down for one more
day. This is the fifth time this year that we have had to pass one of
these bills just because the leadership, the Republican leadership has
failed to get the people's work done.
Specifically, they have failed to act on important educational
priorities, like the bipartisan school construction bill that is
desperately needed in communities all across this country. The bill
would provide $25 billion in school construction bonds to build new
schools, renovate them, and to relieve overcrowding, reduce class size,
and enhance the opportunity for discipline in the classroom and improve
education by making sure that all of our children get the kind of
individual attention that they need to learn.
Mr. Speaker, I have been working with my colleagues on both sides of
the political aisle to pass this bill since I first came to this
people's house 4 years ago. We have gathered more than 228 members on
H.R. 4094; and yet, the Republican leadership has refused to simply
bring this bill to a vote.
As this Congress crawls to its conclusion, more than 3 weeks late,
the educational funding bill is the very last priority of the
Republican leadership. While education languishes under the threats of
cuts and the current congressional leadership has loaded up the
appropriations bill with special interest pork, we are still waiting.
Last week, I told this body about a Senator from Arizona's
observation that the leadership's pork has swelled each of the spending
bills that have been passed. For example, he pointed out that the
transportation appropriation contains some $700 million in
transportation earmarks for the Chicago Metropolitan Transit Authority
in the home State of the Speaker of the House. The transportation
appropriations bill also earmarked $102 million for a bridge across the
Mississippi River in the home State of the majority leader of the other
body. A senior Republican appropriations member got $1.5 million to
refurbish something called the Vulcan Statue in Alabama.
Today, I was shocked to read in the paper that one of the Republican
appropriation members describing the raid on the U.S. Treasury by the
chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The House
Republican described items like $1.25 million for repairs to a church,
$176,000 for a Reindeer Herders Association for somewhere in
southeastern Alaska. That Republican concluded by saying, ``You need a
cargo plane to carry all of this money back.''
Mr. Speaker, each of these projects may very well merit Federal
support. These projects may not be the big spending Federal pork that
they appear to be. I am not an expert on these items. But as a former
State superintendent of the State of North Carolina, I know that our
local neighborhood schools need our help. Our schools are bursting at
the seams, and our communities do not have the resources to build or
repair and provide the quality schools that our children need. As a
result, children are stuffed into overcrowded classrooms, substandard
facilities and rickety trailers that they should not be in.
My Republican colleagues like to talk about block grants, but when it
comes to their own special projects, they are not shy about adding
earmarks, and all of us in this body know what earmarks are. They are
directed projects to be spent specifically for that purpose. If they
were not so important, why did they not just put them in the
transportation bill and let them decide at the local level how to spend
the money. When it comes to roads, airports, bridges and prisons,
special interest pork is powerful when it comes to powerful
politicians.
Mr. Speaker, we should be able to come up with common sense
legislation to build a few schools for the children in this country,
and I think H.R.
[[Page 24356]]
4094 is that common sense bill. Mr. Speaker, I call on the Members to
pass it and pass it now. Prisons ought not to be nicer than our
schools.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to remind my colleagues
that the bills we passed here are much more important than the abstract
arguments about outlays and budget authority. These bills reflect our
values, and these bills demonstrate what our priorities are.
____________________
CELEBRATING 10 YEARS OF SERVICE IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, last evening, rather late into the night, a
number of my colleagues came here to the floor to do a Special Order
celebrating or recognizing my retirement, I am not sure which. But it
was certainly something that I appreciated, and I am not going to try
and discredit the fine things that were said. All of those were very
much appreciated.
But I did want to recognize my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus),
who arranged for the group to come to the House Chamber; the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Porter); the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs.
Biggert); and on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello); and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). I appreciate very much their
comments and the recognition of the years that I have spent in this
body.
I would like to say that serving in the United States Congress was
the fulfillment of an ambition that I probably first thought about when
I was in high school, and serving on the Committee on Agriculture and
being a chairman there was part of that dream that I had for many
years. So my almost 10 years in this body has been very fulfilling,
very rewarding, and certainly a highlight in my life. The ability that
I have had here to grow and to learn and to develop I think is
something that one will take with them forever.
Mr. Speaker, I wish that I could say this to everyone in this
country: The people in this House are some of the finest people that a
person could meet anywhere, on both sides of the aisle. I cannot think
of one person that I have served with in this House that I did not
like, that I did not find had merit to what they said and believed in
what they fought for here.
Unfortunately, the American people I do not think understand how we
come here and how we fight and how we talk and stand for issues that
are important to us, issues that we believe in. And even though we may
disagree to a great extent, I never questioned somebody's motives or
judgment, and that is, to me, a great honor. Everyone that I have
served with here is a good person, and they are serving this country
and our system.
I often say to many people, do not complain about the harsh rhetoric
in the House. We never see tanks, we never see troops in the streets of
this country because we fight our issues out right here on the floor of
the House, and every society has to have a safety valve and it has to
be a place for those issues to be vetted. This is that place. It is a
great institution.
Mr. Speaker, I will always be proud to have been a part of this
House, to have served in the Congress of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, thank you to you, thank you to every Member of this
House.
____________________
{time} 1830
INDONESIA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to share my concern over
the continued bloodshed in Indonesia. I continue to receive reports
that, despite statements of the Indonesian government in Jakarta, the
violence, destruction and murder continues in Ambon.
The people living in the Malukus are pleading for the international
community to get involved and bring them relief, both in terms of
humanitarian aid and physical protection.
Reports from Indonesian NGOs state that refugees are not only
neglected, but are harassed.
Recently, at least 32 people were killed in a day-long attack by
Muslims on an outlying village in Ambon, the capital of the Maluka
Islands. Eyewitnesses stated that the Jihad attackers were aided by
government soldiers during the attack on the village of Hatiwe Besar.
Many who were killed died violently. Most of them, including a 10-
month-old infant, were shot and their bodies were tossed in the fires
of houses burned by the attackers.
In a different account of recent violence, families in one village
that refused to fight were killed and their bodies were found deposited
in the wells in the village.
Yet another account tells of women and girls who, at the sound of
gunfire, ``were desperately clawing at the small yellow buses,
hammering on the side for the driver to stop and let them on. As we
slowed down, they tried to board our vehicle. I had never seen such
fear in people's faces, people who knew the sound of automatic guns
meant that the army was in action and that death was not far away.''
More eyewitness accounts reveal that even 3 weeks ago Jihad warriors
were still moving by boat into the Malukus from Java and surrounding
islands.
One man said, ``We desperately need weapons to defend ourselves.
Nobody cares about us. Nobody offers to help us. We cannot trust the
army because they are often supporting the Jihad fighters. The
politicians and authorities talk a lot, but their words and promises
are not translated into action.''
Many people who witness the violent attacks confirmed that, although
the Indonesian Army was present during the attacks, either nothing was
done to protect the villagers or some of the soldiers actually joined
the aggressors in shooting at the escaping villagers.
Unfortunately, even people such as the current leader of the People's
Consultative Assembly, Dr. Armien Rais, openly supported calls for
Jihad or an Islamic holy war against the Christians and other religious
believers in Indonesia.
However, there are other Islamic leaders who clearly state that this
jihad should not be happening. ``A.T. Zees, a Muslim leader in
Minahasa, told a crowd of Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, and Buddhist
leaders Sept. 14 that the jihad fighters should leave . . . In Islam,
jihad is a holy war against all evils--not murdering Christians,
destroying their houses and churches, robbing, and doing other
contemptible deeds,'' he said. ``A number of peaceful Muslims have
tried to protect Christians.''
Why does the world not pay attention to the continued violence in
which reportedly over 4,000 people have been killed and over 350,000
are now refugees?
When the three U.N. workers were killed in East Timorese refugee
camps, the whole world raised their voices and condemned the killings--
rightly so. Yet, thousands have died in the Malukus, but instead of
outrage, silence has reverberated.
Church leaders and other community leaders are pleading for the
international community to send aid and protect the people against
death from the Jihad fighters. Church leaders say that, if the U.N.
will not send peacekeepers, the least we ask is that ships be kept
ready to evacuate the surviving Christians. Otherwise they will be
forced to choose between Islam and death.
Mr. Speaker, a whole population has been targeted and is slowly being
wiped out or forced out of their homeland. Why will the Indonesian
Government not act so that the killing stops? Where is the outrage in
the international community? Something must be done, or we will see the
destruction of an entire society.
Both Christians and Muslims from this area want peace. They have
lived in peace for many years and in friendship with their neighbors.
[[Page 24357]]
We should ask that the IMF, the World Bank, U.N. officials take
appropriate action to let the Indonesian Government know that they must
take steps to stop the killing. It is not simply an internal Indonesian
affair. The Indonesian people are crying out for help from the
international community because they are not receiving it from their
own government.
Delegations from the U.N. and other countries need to visit the
Malukus to investigate and report on the bloodshed and destruction
throughout the area.
In addition, our government needs to seriously consider the
implications of resuming the close military ties with the Indonesian
Government. The record of human rights abuses by the Indonesian
military is well documented.
Further, our government needs to examine the religious nature of
these killings. This is not simply a local economic conflict.
Declarations of Jihad underscore the religious aspects to the violence,
and this must be considered in terms of U.S. Government actions.
I enjoyed my visit to Indonesia earlier this year. Indonesia is a
land of many resources in its people and its abundance of natural
resources. We are friends of the Indonesian people. It is our hope that
all the people in Indonesia will be able to live in peace.
____________________
EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENTS OF CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, there is much good news in higher
education this year, and we should take a few moments in the House of
Representatives to take notice of it.
Education Secretary Dick Riley appeared today before the last
Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing of the 106th Congress.
Although the stated purpose of the hearing was a sad commentary on
presidential politics, it was an excellent opportunity to highlight the
educational achievements of the past 8 years under Secretary Riley. He
has been a true friend to all American children during his tenure, and
especially to the Hispanic community, as no other Education Secretary
before him.
On behalf of all American children, I want to commend Secretary Riley
for his tireless dedication to improving both education programs and
the Education Department. I know I for one have greatly enjoyed the
opportunity to work with such a great and inspirational figure.
I am very glad to have worked with Secretary Riley personally, who
visited my district twice over the past 4 years. It has afforded us
both valuable experience because each time he has had the opportunity
to witness the beneficial impact of Federal programs such as the E-
Rate, bilingual education, or Gear-up in my south Texas congressional
district.
For example, we have reaped a great benefit from the $75 million
given to date to the Region One Education Service Center, which
overseas 38 school districts in south Texas, serving 298,000 students,
95 percent of whom are Hispanic.
I know each time he visited he raised the morale of our students,
strengthening the appreciation for education among Hispanic, low-
income, and extremely motivated and bright students.
While many of the Department's achievements were noted in his
testimony, there are others worthy of note here tonight. For example,
$18 billion has been added to the annual Federal education spending
since 1995. Math SAT scores are at an all-time high. NAEP, the National
Assessment of Education Progress, reading achievement scores have
significantly improved in all grades tested, and ACT scores increased
from 1992 to 1999. Better still, the numbers of females and minorities
taking the ACT test increased five-fold.
Secretary Riley is the undisputed champion of minority education.
Under his tenure, the Department of Education has helped more than 200
colleges and universities, middle and high schools form Gear-up
partnerships to help 480,000 students and their families to attend
college. Many of the beneficiaries are minority students.
The Department of Education has also been an avid partner in
implementing the Hispanic Education Action Plan, or HEAP, as we call
it. It was started in 1994. These are among the exemplary programs that
assist a great number of minority students and their families in
districts such as mine in south Texas, the third poorest metropolitan
statistical area in the Nation.
The Department's accomplishments included in the Secretary's
testimony are sharply contrasted by a Rand report released yesterday on
public education in my home State of Texas. The Rand report raises
serious questions about the purported test score gains in our State
standards test, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, commonly
referred to as TAAS.
In particular, this report finds that results on TAAS, collected by
Governor Bush's State Education Agency, and other standardized tests
such as NAEP tell very different stories. Rand is by all accounts an
unbiased, well-respected research organization. So when their reports
state that alleged minority students' gains are illusory, we must take
notice.
The report goes on to observe that ``evidence regarding the validity
of score gains on the TAAS can be obtained by investigating the degree
to which these gains are also present on other measures of these same
general skills.'' So how did they measure up?
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude and say that it is vital to remember
that the true education reform is slow and steady and based on
empirical and unbiased data as Secretary Riley and the rest of the
Department employees have done.
____________________
EDUCATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Etheridge) in their interest in the subject of education.
We are fond of pointing out the absolute truth that education is a
local function. It is a State responsibility. But from time to time in
our Nation's history, it has become an overarching national concern.
Such a time occurred a little over a hundred years ago as the United
States emerged from what was largely an agrarian era in this Nation's
history, a time when half of all of Americans lived and worked on farms
because it took that many of us to feed and clothe all of us, to the
entrance into the second industrial revolution.
It changed everything. Mechanized manufacturing and agriculture and
transportation made it possible for cities to grow in ways that had
never ever occurred before, and it changed the skill expectations of an
entire country. It was a time when we really faced the challenge of
elevating the skill level of an entire Nation from one end of the
spectrum to another, all at the same time. That is an extraordinary
undertaking in the life of any nation, and we have been through it. It
was a time of overarching national concern.
The land grant colleges changed the way we educated people for
nation-building here in the United States. Normal schools improved the
education of teachers who, up to that point, the majority of whom had
barely gotten beyond high school themselves when they were teaching
high school. It was done through a partnership of local, State and
Federal activity, and it really was a reinvention of America. It was
the invention of the American century.
Today we find ourselves in a time of very similar change. Technology
today is changing everything. We are seeing a time when the need has
expanded in very much the same way as it did a hundred years ago.
Today we are finding an entire generation of baby boom teachers who
began their careers in the late 1960s
[[Page 24358]]
and early 1970s moving toward retirement, at the same time that the
largest school age population in the Nation's history is moving through
our classrooms, breaking enrollment records every year and likely to
again for the next 12 to 15 years.
All of this is happening at a time when we are seeing the greatest
shift in job skills expectation that we have seen in this country
perhaps since that time 100 or 110 years ago when we became a new
country.
We see at the same time that school buildings, some tired, many worn
out, often obsolete, buildings that were at least in, close to a third
of which were built prior to the Great Depression, coming into a time
of extreme challenge and expectation. That is the circumstance that we
face today. It is what the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Etheridge) was talking about. It is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hinojosa) was talking about.
This is not a crisis, but it is a time when we need to understand
those needs. We have been through that any number of times since 100
years ago when we put together the Land Grant Colleges Acts. We have
seen it in the G.I. bill when millions of men came home from the Second
World War, a war fought with some 23 percent high school graduates. It
was not until 1951 that we saw half of all Americans graduating from
high school. Today those numbers are up into the mid-80s, and the
performance of minority populations are the highest they have ever
been.
We saw that kind of cooperation in the National Defense Education Act
in the wake of Sputnik and in title I for the educationally
disadvantaged in the 1960s, the development of special education in the
mid-1970s, the adult education programs that have grown in need and
performance in the course of this decade alone.
{time} 1845
And we have seen college aid, through financial loans and grants,
change the face of higher education in the United States. It has not
happened just because it is possible; it has happened because it has
been necessary. It has been necessary as we seek to change the face of
the Nation yet again.
We need to develop a whole new cohort of well-qualified teachers and
to assist in the financing of a new school construction and renovation
plan that will make it possible for this largest generation of school
learners to take part in that education. This is not something we do
simply because we think it would be nice. As we stand here trying to
seek to extend the kind of prosperity that we enjoy today through
paying down the national debt, through extending the solvency of Social
Security, there is no better way we can do that than through ensuring
the skill levels of a new Nation.
Our children will have to learn as if their entire world depended on
it, because it does. Their world and our world.
____________________
HUNGER RELIEF ACT, H.R. 3192
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, we observed World Food Day last week, and
we paused to recognize that hunger is still a way of life for far too
many in America and around the world. It is for that reason that I rise
once again to urge this House and this Congress to pass the remaining
provisions of the Hunger Relief Act, H.R. 3192.
This legislation enjoys the support of 186 cosponsors in the House,
Democrats and Republicans. The companion bill, S. 1805 enjoys the
support of 35 cosponsors in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans.
Nearly 1,400 national, State and local organizations in all 50 States
have endorsed the Hunger Relief.
Editorial boards, columns, articles and op-eds from the East Coast to
the West Coast, from the far north to the far south, have expressed
support for the act. Among those are The Washington Post, the Lincoln
Journal Star, The New York Times, the Oregonian, the Philadelphia
Inquirer, the Tulsa World, the Indianapolis Star, the Dallas Morning
News, the Newark Star-Ledger and the North Carolina News and Observer.
In a recent letter, 25 leaders from the religious community urged the
President and the Congress to make food stamp benefit restoration for
legal immigrants a top priority during the final days of this session.
Represented in that group of religious leaders are Catholic, Jewish,
Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Mennonite, and other denominations.
More recently, more than 25 Members of this body sent a letter to the
President urging him to help complete this task.
The National Conference of State Legislators, a group that supported
the 1996 welfare reform bill, have also joined in that call. The U.S.
Conference of Mayors and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators
have also endorsed the Hunger Relief Act.
In short, Mr. Speaker, there is widespread support for finishing the
job we started earlier with the passage of the agriculture
appropriation conference report. As a part of that conference report we
included two vitally important provisions from the Hunger Relief Act.
We changed the vehicle limit so that families can retain a reliable car
without losing food stamp benefits, and we changed the shelter cap so
that families can obtain decent shelter without losing food stamp
benefits. At the very least, we should now restore food stamp benefits
for all legal immigrants.
Those legal immigrants who are now excluded from food stamp coverage
came to America at a different time than our ancestors, but they should
not be treated differently for that reason. They too embrace the
promise of liberty etched on the statue in the harbor in New York. It
seems strange that we must fight for food for those legal immigrants
who cannot fight for themselves.
America is a strong Nation, and we are strong because we can provide
quality food at affordable prices. There are many places in the world
where the same cannot be said. But the real strength of America is not
due to our advanced technology, our economic base, or our military
might. The real strength of America is in its compassion for people.
The real strength of America is caring and being concerned about those
who live in the shadows of life: the poor, the weak, the frail, the
disabled, our children, our seniors, the hungry. America's compassion
makes us strong.
Less than 3 percent of the budget goes to help to feed the hungry,
yet nearly 70 percent of legal immigrants are women, many of them with
children.
Mr. Speaker, hunger is more than a mere word; it is a way of life for
far too many legal immigrants. When we passed the welfare reform
legislation, we did some things that were right, but there was one
thing that was wrong. We excluded legal immigrants from the food stamp
program.
With such broad-based bipartisan support from the Congress to the
White House, from State legislators to governors' mansions and
throughout the private sector, we have a chance to correct that
mistake. Let us not go home to the comfort of our living rooms and to
the refrigerators full of bounty while leaving legal immigrants without
one of the most basic necessities of life, and that is food. Let us
pass the other part of the Hunger Relief Act.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, Social Security has really come
to light, so I am going to spend 5 minutes talking about Social
Security, the problem and the potential solution, and what the
presidential candidates are doing in their suggestions to help resolve
this serious problem of Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, I came into Congress in 1993; and I introduced my first
Social
[[Page 24359]]
Security bill. I have introduced a Social Security bill every session,
and the last three were scored by the Social Security Administration to
keep Social Security solvent for the next 75 years.
I was selected to be chairman of the bipartisan task force on Social
Security. I have found it is sort of like an automobile mechanic, the
more the mechanic knows about the inside operations, probably the
better he lubricates and adds the oil and greases his car. I am
concerned, knowing some of the internal operations of Social Security,
that there is a lot of friction there, that it is not solvent.
Just briefly, insolvency is certain. We know how many people there
are. We know when they are going to retire. We know that people will
live longer in retirement. We know how much they are going to pay in
and how much they are going to take out. Payroll tax is not going to
cover the benefits starting in 2015. It is a pay-as-you-go program.
Current workers pay in their tax, and it is almost immediately sent out
to current retirees. It is going to take $120 trillion over and above
tax revenues over the next 75 years to accommodate the promises we have
made in Social Security.
Some have suggested that economic growth is great now, that that is
going to help solve the problem of Social Security. Not true. Social
Security benefits are indexed to wage growth. So the higher the wages,
the higher the benefits for everybody. When the economy grows, workers
pay more in taxes, but also they will earn more in benefits when they
retire. Growth makes the numbers look better now but leaves a larger
hole to fill later.
The administration has used these short-term advantages as an excuse
to do nothing. So if there is one criticism I would have it is the
missed opportunity over the last 8 years of not really stepping up to
the plate and fixing Social Security.
The Vice President has suggested that if we pay down the debt to the
public, the debt we owe to the public is $3.4 trillion, the suggestion
is that we use some of the Social Security surplus, pay down that debt,
and then apply another IOU, or use the interest savings on that debt to
help fix this big tall tower over here of $46.6 trillion. So the
suggestion is that by paying down the debt, we will solve this problem.
This next graph shows why that will not happen. The blue at the bottom
represents $260 billion a year that we are now paying in interest on
the debt.
So, look, it has to be a priority. Putting Social Security in the
lockbox was a great thing the Republicans did. This year saying that at
least 90 percent of the surplus has to go to pay down the debt was a
good idea. But even if all of the $260 billion every year for the next
57 years was used to go into the Social Security Trust Fund, there
would still be a shortfall of $35 trillion.
Look, this is a big-time problem. We have to do it now and not leave
a big mortgage for our kids.
Very briefly, the biggest risk is doing nothing at all. I want to
show these charts, because Al Gore has criticized Governor Bush of
taking a trillion dollars out of Social Security, or using it twice. He
is saying that the Governor is going to use it once to pay benefits and
once to start private investment accounts.
Over the next 10 years, the revenues coming in to the Social Security
Trust Fund are $7.8 trillion. The benefits, or the money going out, is
$5.4 trillion. That leaves a surplus of $2.4 trillion. Governor Bush is
suggesting we take $1 trillion of that and start using that to
accommodate personally owned retirement accounts that individuals own;
that if they die it goes into their estate, unlike Social Security, of
course.
So as we can see, having current medium-income workers retire much
wealthier by having this kind of magic that will develop with the magic
of compound interest is one way to increase retirement benefits and
save the system.
Some people have said it is too risky. I show this chart just because
this represents the up and down of a 30-year average. Over a 30-year
average for the last hundred years, the average income is 6.7 percent.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE THOMAS EWING AND THE HONORABLE JOHN PORTER,
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to two
retiring Members of the Illinois delegation who have faithfully and
effectively served their constituents and the citizens of this Nation.
First, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), who spent 17 years in
the Illinois General Assembly and rose to the position of assistant
Republican leader and deputy minority leader before he came to
Congress. In Congress, Tom Ewing has focused much of his attention on
issues relating to agriculture, crime prevention, education, economic
growth and health care.
It has been a pleasure to work with him, and I wish him well as he
returns to the very pleasant, peaceful, and friendly community in and
around Pontiac, Illinois.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I turn my attention to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter), who is completing his 11th term as a Member and is the
very astute, sensitive, and effective chairman of the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education of the Committee on
Appropriations. He is founder and cochairman of the Congressional Human
Rights Caucus. He has been cited many times by various budget watchdog
groups and has stood in the vanguard on environmental issues.
John Porter has been a strong supporter of biomedical research, a
friend of community health centers, and has stood tall against the
continuous spread of HIV/AIDS. The Core Center of Chicago stands today
as a model to fight these dreaded diseases and is indeed a testament to
the support which John Porter gave to its efforts.
One of the things that I have always liked best about John Porter is
his ability to convey optimism even when the cupboard is practically
bare. He is always eager to look, to see, to try and determine and
figure out whether or not he can find greatly needed resources for
these programs.
{time} 1900
I thank him for his sensitivity to the issues facing America and
especially my district and wish him well in retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the
Honorable Donald Lemm, Mayor of Bellwood, Illinois, on the occasion of
his pending retirement.
Mayor Lemm has lived in Bellwood all of his life, he and his late
wife and four children and five grandchildren. He and his current wife,
Joy, live at 517 51st Avenue. Mayor Lemm is a graduate of DePaul
University with a degree in business administration and accounting. He
is a member of the VFW and served in Korea with the 71st Station
Hospital as sergeant major.
Prior to becoming mayor, Donald Lemm was a CTA executive for 40
years, serving in the capacities of training specialist, methods
analyst, superintendent of bus and rail transportation, and retired as
manager of insurance and pensions. He also served as administrative
assistant to the chairman of the CTA Board and was retained by the
Chicago Transit Authority as a consultant for 3 years after retirement.
Mayor Lemm is active in St. Simeon parish, has served several times
as president of the Holy Name Society, is a member of the St. Simeon
Contemporary Choir and St. Simeon Traveling Troop, is a lector and
minister of the cup, and has served as a member of the parish financial
planning commission.
Prior to becoming mayor, Donald Lemm served for 16 years as village
clerk. As mayor, he has led the Village of Bellwood into the new
millennium, opening up opportunity, creating increased property values,
and serving as the role model.
Mr. Lemm has demonstrated what it really means to be a true public
servant, always putting the interests of his community and his people
above any personal interests.
And so, I am pleased to congratulate him on an excellent public
career and wish him and his family well in retirement.
____________________
[[Page 24360]]
FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A further message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its
clerks, announced that the Senate has passed without amendment a joint
resolution of the House of the following title:
H.J. Res. 115. Joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other
purposes.
The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of
the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4811) ``An Act making
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes.''.
____________________
EDUCATION AND CONDITION OF SCHOOLS NATIONWIDE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a few minutes to bring
to the attention of the Members of the House some information with
regard to education and the condition of schools around the country,
both in the State of New York and nationwide.
In New York, for example, there are a total number of 4,172 schools
currently operating in the State. The total State and local district
school construction spending in the most recent year for which figures
are available was $1.6 billion.
According to the Census Bureau, New York, along with Texas and
Florida, spends the most on the cost of school construction. However,
despite being among the top three spenders for school construction, the
poor condition of too many New York schools sends a clear signal that
State and local funding is simply not enough to meet modernization
needs.
In New York, as is true in many places around the country, the local
school districts rely on the local real property tax to pay for the
cost of education, including construction and modernization of our
schools.
Ninety percent of the schools report a need to upgrade or repair
buildings in order to bring them up to a good overall condition. In
other words, 90 percent are less than good. Sixty-seven percent report
at least one inadequate building feature such as the roof, plumbing,
electricity. Seventy-six percent report at least one unsatisfactory
environmental factor such as air quality, ventilation, or lighting.
There are computers in the schools, but there is only one computer for
every 16 students, 16 students trying to use each computer.
In 1998 and 1999, New York paid $618 million in interest on school
debt. Again, this money comes out of the local real property tax.
Sadly, these statistics reflect the condition of school buildings in
almost every place around the country.
Two years ago, I conducted a school modernization study in the
district that I represent, which is a largely rural district in upstate
central New York. It has five small cities, but the rest of the
district is largely rural. In addition to finding similar results as
those I have just mentioned, I discovered also that nearly one-third of
the schools in the New York State district that I represent were built
before 1940. More than one-third of the schools surveyed reported being
cited for fire code violations at some point within the previous year.
Over half the respondents said that overcrowding in their classrooms
was a serious problem.
This is costing us. It is costing us in the education of our children
and the ability of those children to perform in the future, and it is
going to cost our economy unless we face up to this problem.
The Democrats in this House, along with President Clinton and Vice
President Gore, believe very strongly that in order to get our schools
into the condition that they should be in the Federal Government needs
to help local school districts afford to repair and modernize our
schools.
We have a bipartisan bill. It is sponsored by Republicans as well as
Democrats. It would provide $22 billion in public bonding authority to
help rebuild and repair over 5,000 public schools. This bill would
bring $2.5 billion to New York State alone for school construction and
modernization.
The bill is popular in this House. It has 228 sponsors, including a
number of Republicans as well as Democrats. And yet, the Republican
leadership has thus far refused to allow for any consideration, any
reasonable debate or a hearing on the floor of the House.
According to the General Accounting Office, a record 52.7 million
children are enrolled currently in elementary and secondary schools
across the country. That number is expected to climb to 54.3 children
within less than 8 years. Thousands of new public schools will be
needed within the next few years to accommodate rising enrollments.
We cannot expect States and local school districts, relying as they
do on local real property taxes, to shoulder this financial burden. We
ought to bring this bill to the floor of the House. We ought to give it
careful and thoughtful consideration. We ought to give the Members of
this House an opportunity to debate and vote on the bill.
The 228 sponsors believe that if that happens the bill will pass and
we will provide the relief that is necessary for school districts and
the children and the families they serve across the country.
I hope that before we leave here this bill will come to the floor and
we will give it the consideration that it needs. The future of our
country and specifically the future of our children and communities all
across America depend upon modernizing our schools, providing these
school construction funds.
____________________
AMERICA'S BETTER CLASSROOMS ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) in speaking about our public
schools.
Once again, I rise to express my deep concern over the state of the
schools across this Nation, which are overcrowded and in disrepair. In
these precious last few days of the 106th Congress, I call upon our
leadership to pass comprehensive school modernization legislation.
I strongly believe that education is a local issue, but overcrowding
is a local problem which deserves a national response.
Just 1 month ago, I stood here holding a letter signed by over 300
students from Peabody Elementary School in Santa Barbara, California,
expressing their desire for passage of school construction legislation.
At this school, students receive a top-notch education.
Unfortunately, the students also feel the disturbing effects of
overcrowding. This is a school built for 200 students, but now it has
an enrollment of over 600.
The added portable classrooms take up precious playground space,
which should be used so that students can take part in physical
education and activities.
I have visited other schools in my district which suffer from similar
circumstances. In Santa Maria, the Oakley School's enrollment is
currently over 800, while the school was originally built for 480
students. The first of four lunch sessions begins at 10:30. The last
children do not finish until well after 1:30 in the afternoon.
In San Luis Obispo County, Cambria Grammar School was built to handle
200 students. With eight portable buildings, they now have 345.
Students have very limited playground space here, and their
kindergarten needed to move to a nearby middle school because of
overcrowding. This kindergarten is
[[Page 24361]]
now housed in a portable room with a small, fenced-in playground.
I spent over 20 years as a school nurse in the Santa Barbara school
system. I have seen firsthand the damage that deteriorating school
buildings can do. Students cannot thrive academically if they are
learning in overcrowded and crumbling buildings at the most crucial
time for learning in their lives.
We simply must do better for our students. I strongly support the
America's Better Classroom Act. This legislation enjoys bipartisan
support and has 225 cosponsors. It would provide approximately $25
billion in interest-free funds to State and local governments for
school construction and modernization projects.
Such funding would help schools like Peabody, Oakley, and Cambria
Grammar School to make improvements in classrooms and playgrounds that
would help reduce class sizes.
When I think what our local educators are forced to deal with and the
struggle they are engaged in to address all these problems, I am awed
and impressed by how they pull it off each day. They all deserve our
most heartfelt appreciation, and I applaud them for the work they do.
I believe that Members of Congress should come to the Central Coast
of California and see the crowded conditions that students and faculty
must contend with on a daily basis. Then I think we could see some
action.
Here in Congress we must set our standards high to ensure that all
children have a healthy and safe start. All children deserve to have
safe, clean, modern schools to attend each day.
So, Mr. Speaker, I join with the students of the Central Coast of
California and I ask that we bring H.R. 4094 to the floor for a vote
before this session of Congress comes to a close. There is no excuse
not to debate this important bipartisan bill. The 106th Congress is
coming to an end, but our students have a lifetime of learning ahead
and they need our help.
____________________
COMPILATION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG LETTERS FOR HOUSE FLOOR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, beginning on April 12, for the 20 weeks
that the House has been in session, I have read 22 letters from MI
seniors who desperately need help with their high prescription drug
costs.
In that time, I have been pushing consistently for prescription drug
coverage under Medicare. Our time is nearly up, and we still have not
passed this important legislation.
Looking back through the 22 letters that I have read on the House
floor, I am reminded of why it is so important to modernize Medicare
and provide prescription drug coverage for seniors.
From Shirley and Raymond Radcliff, Escanaba: ``We are a couple on a
fixed income and cannot afford these drugs that continue to escalate.
Our income cannot keep up with it. Fifteen pills of [one medication]
are $41.99. I cannot afford that and discontinued taking them . . . A
two month supply of [another medication] is $82.53. I no longer take
those either, because I cannot afford them.''
From Concetta Lisuzzo, Dearborn: ``If you can bring these prices
[down] I will be very grateful to you. It seems like a visit to the
doctor adds one more prescription. Please help us, so we won't have to
make choices between food or prescriptions.''
From Annabelle Lewis, Alma: ``I stopped taking [my medication] in
January 1999, having cut pills in half.''
From Julia Kanopsky, Livonia: ``I just wish the government would take
an interest in problems like this. To curb high prices, I eat two meals
a day, and any more hike in health cost, I'll have to go on one meal.''
From Dolores Graycheck, Indian River: ``Each month we get deeper in
debt and soon we, like a lot of other people, won't have anything left
. . . I think it's a shame that our supposed Golden Years aren't Golden
after all.''
From Mr. and Mrs. Arnold Crook, Hillsdale: ``We can't go [anywhere]
or do anything because it takes all our income for the cost to live.
Some weeks, I wonder how long we can go on. It keeps going up in cost
and we cannot live.''
From Harriett Simmons, Detroit: ``We are senior citizens today but
yesterday we were active, taxpaying citizens. Don't mistreat us now. We
need protection.''
____________________
USS LST MEMORIAL, INC.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a story about a World War II
LST that is coming home. She is one of the last of her kind. She has
seen a lot in her time. And now, at about 65 years of age, she is about
to take on one of the biggest challenges of her entire lifetime.
She was there on D-Day, June 6, 1944. Time and again, the gallant LST
325 returned to Omaha Beach, through murderous gunfire, to unload more
men and more equipment to replenish the high casualty and death rate
being suffered. She was repaired, and she survived.
At the close of World War II, she was transferred for service to
Greece and her name was changed to Syros. After years of good service
to Greece, Syros was no longer needed.
About 3 years ago, my constituent, James Edwards of Canton, Texas,
contacted me with a request for assistance in the retransfer of the LST
from Greece to the United States LST Ship Memorial, Inc., a nonprofit
organization whose membership consists of former Navy service members,
mostly World War II type guys. I understand the feelings, as I fall in
that category, too.
The members of this organization had a dream and a goal that never
died. They planned, dreamed, and worked for years to own their own LST.
They had a vision of using the ship for educational purposes.
{time} 1915
They wanted young people to tour the ship and experience the value of
such a trip in helping to win the war and to honor the work it had
done. They wanted young Navy midshipmen to train on her, and they
wanted Americans of all ages to climb aboard and visit her and even
sail on her. Therefore, the LST had to be a movable museum, one that
could sail around the waters of the United States and even up the
rivers, docking at cities along the way to welcome visitors aboard.
That was a tall order, but a worthy cause.
After learning of this noble plan, I introduced legislation to secure
the transfer from Greece, and I want to thank my colleagues who
supported this effort and helped pass it. I think it should be noticed
that the legislation never required one Federal dollar. Unique in
itself, the Memorial Association has been raising money and saving
funds for years, waiting for that day when they could bring a ``live''
LST back home.
Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the veterans have been in Greece
for 3 months, at their own expense, renovating the ship in preparation
for the journey back home. She is equipped with the newest radar,
repainted and made safe and livable for this historic trip. LST 325
will be sailed home by these veterans, most of whom are veterans of
World War II and many of them who are retired. The average age is
reported to be at 74 years young.
Recently, the men took LST 325 for a 5-hour shakedown. They cruised
around Crete, and she performed perfectly. The report came back to me
that the veterans said how wonderful to feel the salt air in their
faces again, and I heard that there were some tears of joy mixed in.
These men are being cheered and supported by current Navy personnel
stationed in Crete and by members of the Hellenic Navy. I am pleased to
tell my colleagues that our Ambassador to Greece, Nicholas Burns, and
officials of our American Embassy, have done much to make all of this
good news possible, and I am sure my colleagues will join me in being
appreciative of their assistance.
Finally, having planned very well and believing they had all loose
ends tied up, these veterans discovered that their source for food was
not going to be available. Neither was their source for fuel. That was
the bad news. How
[[Page 24362]]
were they going to get the LST back home?
This story is fraught with heroes. This epic, this ongoing saga of 40
courageous World War II veterans giving of their hearts to bring the
LST 325 home, found another big heart and that is the heart of Mike
McAdams, a vice president of British Petroleum, a fellow Texan and
former staffer of mine, who went to other officials of BP with the
story of this little band of veterans, so full of bravery and
determination and so in need of fuel.
Mr. Speaker, the good news is that British Petroleum has donated over
40,000 gallons of fuel to the men and the memorial ship, enough to
bring LST 325 back home to America. They are ecstatic and grateful and
so am I.
The corporate leaders of British Petroleum have shown a
responsibility to share which cuts across all generations in a salute
to those who have given so much and served so proudly. Mr. Speaker, I
say: thank you, Mike Mc Adams and thank you British Petroleum.
The transfer of documents will take place in Athens momentarily and
the LST 325 will be on her way. The plan is to stop in Rota, Spain,
taking the southern route home. She is expected in Fort Lauderdale
sometime around Thanksgiving, as she travels only 7\1/2\ knots an hour.
I hope to be there when she arrives. What a celebration that will be.
When the men, these veterans, come home, they will have realized a
dream of many years and a vision for a memorial that will honor all
veterans who have put their lives in harm's way. Many of their
shipmates lost their lives during the amphibious assaults, and the LST
memorial will honor these men who sail this ship today in the memory of
all who have gone before them.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the 106th Congress, I am
honored to pay tribute to the veterans of the LST and all those who
helped make this dream come true. I hope that my colleagues will join
me in wishing them well and say a prayer for their safe journey back
home.
____________________
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM BLILEY, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to provide a complete
legislative record, I am providing the CBO cost estimates for H.R. 762,
the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 2000, and H.R. 3850, the
Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000, which
were not included in the Committee's reports on the bills.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office
Washington, DC, October 4, 2000.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3850, the
Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of
2000.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Ken
Johnson, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(for Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE, OCTOBER 4, 2000
H.R. 3850: Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of
2000, As Ordered Reported by the House Committee on Commerce on
September 14, 2000
H.R. 3850 would exempt small telecommunications carriers
from certain rules and reporting requirements administered by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The bill would
relieve small carriers from the requirement to maintain
separate affiliates to provide advanced telecommunications
services. This provision could alter payments that such firms
receive from the Universal Service Fund. The legislation also
would require that the FCC grant or deny merger petitions
from small telecommunications firms within 60 days, and all
reconsideration and waiver petitions within 90 days.
CBO estimates that H.R. 3850 would have no significant
impact on the federal budget. The bill could, however, have
small effects on both direct spending and governmental
receipts (revenues), so pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
H.R. 3850 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Based on information from the FCC, CBO estimates that the
agency would spend about $3 million a year to implement H.R.
3850. The commission would need more staff to investigate the
costs incurred by small telecommunications carriers, which
the bill would exempt from certain reporting requirements.
The FCC also would have to hire additional personnel to
review merger, reconsideration, and waiver petitions in order
to meet the bill's deadlines for acting on such petitions.
Under current law, enforcement and regulatory costs that the
agency incurs are offset by fees charged to the industries
that the FCC regulates. Therefore, CBO expects that the net
effect on the FCC's appropriated spending would be
negligible.
H.R. 3850 would affect governmental receipts and direct
spending in two ways. First, it could allow small
telecommunications carriers to receive larger payments from
the Universal Service Fund to support the added costs of
providing advanced telecommunications services. Using the
Universal Service Fund established by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, the FCC seeks to provide universal access to
telecommunications services, in part through assessments on
telephone companies to finance payments to companies that
serve high-cost regions. Receipts to the Universal Service
Fund are recorded as governmental receipts, and payments do
not require annual appropriation action. Based on information
from the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative
Company, CBO estimates that any change in the Universal
Service Fund's spending resulting from this legislation would
not be significant and would be offset by either lower
payments to other companies or higher revenues.
Second, H.R. 3850 would affect application fees the FCC
collects to offset costs associated with tariff filings and
other applications from the telecommunications industry.
Those licensing fees are recorded as offsetting receipts.
Based on information from the FCC, CBO expects that H.R. 3850
could affect the number of tariffs filed by small
telecommunications carriers. However, CBO estimates that the
resulting change, if any, in receipts from application fees
would not be significant.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Ken Johnson, who
can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by
Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
____
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, October 13, 2000.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 762, the Lupus
Research and Care Amendments of 2000.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Alexis K.
Ahlstrom, who can be reached at 226-9010.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE, OCTOBER 13, 2000
H.R. 762: Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 2000, as Passed by the
House of Representatives on October 10, 2000
H.R. 762 would require the Director of the National
Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
(NIAMSD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to expand
and intensify research and related activities of the
institute regarding lupus. The NIH will spend approximately
$50 million on lupus research this year. The act would
require the Director to coordinate activities with similar
activities conducted by other national research institutes
and agencies of the NIH. The act also would require NIAMSD to
conduct or support research to expand the understanding of
the causes of lupus, and to increase research into finding a
cure for the disease.
H.R. 762 would authorized grants for the establishment,
operation, and coordination of delivery of essential services
to individuals with lupus and their families. The act also
would regulate charges (such as enrollment fees, premiums,
deductible, cost sharing, copayments, coinsurance, or other
charges) imposed by grantees on service recipients.
H.R. 762 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as
necessary to carry out the act's provisions in fiscal years
2001 through 2003. At this time, CBS cannot estimate how much
would be necessary to implement H.R. 762. However, because
the act would not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-
you-go procedures would not apply.
H.R. 762 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
State and local governments, as well as a number of
[[Page 24363]]
community and nonprofit organizations, would be eligible for
grants established by H.R. 762 for the purpose of delivering
and enhancing health care and related services for
individuals with lupus.
The CBO staff contact is Alexis K. Ahlstrom, who can be
reached at 226-9010. This estimate was approved by Peter H.
Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
____________________
TODAY'S CHALLENGE: EDUCATION IN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, the challenge confronting us today is
education. Before us is the future of education. We as a Nation must
place education as the number one priority if we are to meet the
challenges and needs of the 21st century; if we are to look where our
children are going to be and if they are well prepared to meet those
challenges.
We need to invest in education. We need to come together in a
bipartisan effort and support H.R. 4094; 228 Members are cosponsors.
This is not a partisan issue. This is a bipartisan issue. This is about
education and putting a high priority and investing in the future of
America.
We need to make sure that class size reduction for our children is
there. We have got to make sure that our children have the same
opportunity that many other individuals have where they have small
classes, but it can only happen through modernization and class size
reduction.
We need to fund education at the highest level. When a child comes
into school, they must feel comfortable to know that the ratio is 25 to
one, student to teacher. If the atmosphere is good, the students feel
good, the teachers feel good. They are in an atmosphere that they can
learn. That is positive for a lot of our students. The individual
attention is important to a student, because a student has to develop
self-esteem, self-confidence in themselves. If he or she has confidence
in himself and they know that the teacher is working in areas that they
need, then we can have the accountability to make sure that our
students are progressing and learning in our public institutions. It
can only happen if we reduce the class sizes.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we need teacher training; and, yes, we do need
accountability. That is very important for us as well. But we must
invest in education; we must allow that to happen. We must provide the
tools and the instruments to make sure that our teachers have the
resources and the funding. I know that it is very difficult in today's
society. When we look at California alone, that has over 6 million
students in our K through 12. More and more students are coming in, and
yet we have a ratio of 45 to one in many of our schools. We need to
make sure that we look across the Nation and we provide the funding.
My son, Joseph Baca, Jr., is a teacher in junior high, and he is
going out and buying supplies. This should not happen to him and many
other teachers because we are not providing the funds that are very
much needed in our classrooms. We need to make sure that we provide not
only the funding to make sure that teachers have the equipment, have
the supplies, and create the atmosphere; we want to make sure that when
children go into our schools, that they know very well that they are
coming into a school that they do not have to worry about leaking
roofs. They do not have to worry about not having any faucets that are
fixed, and they do not have to worry about looking at windows that are
broken. They do not have to look at walls that have graffiti. We want
to create an atmosphere that is good for them.
If an atmosphere is good for them, then they will begin to learn. And
if it is good for them, then teachers feel good about being energized
in teaching.
At the same time, we have to make sure that we look at not only
modernization, but the digital divide, to look at technology to make
sure that we fund every one of our schools so that our children are
well prepared to meet the 21st century and well prepared and well
trained. If they are not, what is going to happen to our Nation? What
is going to happen to our Nation? It is our responsibility that we
provide the funding at a higher level. We have got to invest more. We
are not investing enough in education.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer and the beginning and the right
steps are in H.R. 4094. That is a step in the right direction. When an
individual receives the funding, then that means we have the
accountability. At the same time, when we look at where are our
students, we must prepare them to meet the 21st century so they are
ready to go to a community college and State college and our
universities.
Are community colleges ready for them? We have to make sure that we
provide tax incentives and tax rates and tuition that is available for
our students to go on to our community colleges. More and more students
are going to our community colleges right now, and we have to make sure
that we provide the funding there. And as we look at those students who
are transferring on to 4-year institutions, to make sure that they can
get into a State college or university.
Mr. Speaker, I know that we have honors programs and other programs,
but it becomes difficult when we do not have the funding and we do not
have the financing that are available for a lot of our students. The
tax incentives and tax breaks are there. Mr. Speaker, we need to invest
more in education. We can take the right steps. The steps are ahead of
us, but we have to come together in a bipartisan effort.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CONGRESSMAN RON PACKARD UPON HIS RETIREMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, the leader of our California delegation, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), has given me the honor of
putting together a night to honor the gentleman from California (Mr.
Packard), one of our colleagues who is leaving the House, retiring at
the end of this session.
We wanted to take a little time to talk a little bit of his
accomplishments while here in the Congress. First of all, we will hear
from our leader, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). I yield to
him such time as he desires.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my
colleague yielding. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my
colleagues this evening in paying tribute to our friend from the
Committee on Appropriations, Ron Packard. Ron is retiring from the
House after 18 years of service to his constituents. He has had the
privilege of representing one of the most beautiful parts of our State
in south Orange County and north San Diego County, a small piece of
Riverside County as well, as he would remind us.
It is understandable why Ron would want to spend more time at home.
He has just completed the building of a new home with his wife, Jean,
seven children and too many grandchildren to count. He has got plenty
to look forward to as he goes back home to his district.
Ron came to the Congress after serving in the U.S. Navy and later as
a member of the school board, active in the chamber of commerce. He
served on the city council and was mayor of Carlsbad. Ron was elected
to Congress as a result of his success as a write-in candidate in 1982,
one of the very few occasions in which a write-in candidate has been
successful.
I have worked most closely with Ron in the appropriations process
where over the years he has been the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Legislative Appropriations, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Military Construction Appropriations, and is just completing a tour
representing our State very well on the subcommittee that deals with
energy and water appropriations, a most important appropriations bill.
[[Page 24364]]
Mr. Speaker, we are going to miss Ron greatly as a member of our
committee. He has been of great service to Southern California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Long
Beach, California (Mr. Horn).
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, Ron Packard is truly a man of the House of
Representatives. He is a gentleman. He is civility. He is a good
listener, and he has got a ready smile. He won friends all over this
Chamber on both sides of the aisle; and, of course, that is what
effective legislators do.
Of course, when we all learned that he had a total of 44 children and
grandchildren, 7 children, 34 grandchildren, and three great
grandchildren, we were envious. And I always wondered how he remembered
their names. I suspect Jean, his charming wife, maybe put a sort of
easel up and when they were coming, said here are the names.
Ron, in whatever he did as a legislator here, first on public works,
now known as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but
now on the Committee on Appropriations, he was very fair when he
listened to all of us, Democrats, Republicans, Easterners, Westerners,
Northerners, Southerners. On appropriations, he brought basic common
sense to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, one of the
most difficult committees in this Chamber, because it involves floods,
it involves ecology, it involves environment. Ron could deal with all
of those pressures.
He cared about our troops abroad, in particular. In the period when
he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, our
troops abroad in Korea were in Second World War barracks going to
pieces, and Ron knew that should not be. If we have families, as we do
now in all the services, we need good facilities and we need a place
where they can call home when it is abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ron for all he has done in this Chamber,
and all he will do when he goes back to, as the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) said, that beautiful part of the California
coast.
So, Jean and Ron, you are a great couple to have as a mentor and have
as a model, and we thank you for what you have done in your 2 decades
here, and we wish you well in the years ahead.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Frelinghuysen), a colleague of Ron Packard's on the Committee on
Appropriations.
{time} 1930
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to wish our colleague Ron Packard well in
his retirement from the House of Representatives at the end of this
106th Congress.
Tonight a number of us have gathered in this Chamber during this
special time to pay tribute to our colleague and our friend who has
served with distinction in this people's House for 18 years. All of us
know this very good-natured gentleman from California is one of only
four Members of Congress to have ever won their first election to the
Congress as a write-in candidate, a tremendous feat in and of itself.
Little did we know that Ron would go from that point in 1982 to become
chairman of three very important House appropriations subcommittees.
As other Members have mentioned, many of us here tonight know Ron for
his years of service on the House Committee on Appropriations. I myself
have had the honor of serving with him on that committee, and most
recently I have had the pleasure of serving under his chairmanship on
the appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water.
For the past 2 years, Ron has been steadfast in reversing the
President's decision to underfund our Nation's infrastructure needs.
Due to his leadership, the Congress has maintained a strong commitment
to partnerships with our local communities and States by providing
these needed funds for flood control, shore protection and dredging our
harbors and the like.
As a former businessman, school board member, city councilman, and
mayor, Ron has always believed that the Federal Government should
provide a helpful hand but the true power and decisions should be
returned to State and local government officials who know the best
needs of their constituents.
On a personal note, in July of 1999, I traveled with Ron and his
wife, Jean, and other Members to Russia as part of our committee
assignment on Energy and Water. Ron and our colleagues toured the
Russian ``closed cities'' or the former nuclear sites and met with
numerous Russian officials. It was a trip to remember, in large part
due to Ron's leadership, his insistence that we see where U.S. dollars
were being spent to dispose of or contain nuclear waste.
Throughout our trip within Russia, Ron showed his dedication to our
purpose for being there and to the American people by insisting on
receiving a complete understanding of the current status of all of
these nuclear sites. Additionally during this trip, I had the
opportunity to get to know Ron and Jean; and I can tell you, judging
from our discussions about our families, that Ron and Jean will
definitely continue to be busy grandparents, taking a very active role
in all of their 34 grandchildren's lives. The Congress' loss will be
his family's gain.
I wish you well in retirement, Ron. You have set a high standard for
all of us to follow that remain. We will miss you. Good luck and
Godspeed.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Riverside,
California (Mr. Calvert), another of Ron's good friends and neighbors.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Valencia,
California, for putting together this special order for our good
friend, Ron Packard; and I say that very sincerely.
I do not know if the gentleman remembers, but in 1982 we both ran for
Congress in Republican primaries, and, something we have in common, we
both lost. I lost my Republican primary, but Ron went on to win a very
substantial victory in a write-in campaign.
That has only happened four times in the history of the United States
House of Representatives, which shows how popular and well loved he is
in his district. I know that for a fact, because our districts adjoin
each other in the Temecula-Marrietta areas of our district. And every
year we would get together for the last 8 years I have been in the
House, and we would meet and have what they call the Ron and Ken show
up there. And we would talk about issues that affect the Temecula-
Marrietta Valley. I will miss that very much; and you need to come out,
Ron, to celebrate those times.
On issues out in those areas, Pierce's Disease, which is devastating
the vintners out there in that area, and avocados, that we just
successfully concluded here shortly, those I am sure are issues you are
very proud of in the local sense. But, obviously, on a national sense,
the service that you have done for the Committee on Appropriations in
all the various subcommittees, legislative branch, certainly military
construction, where you have helped a lot of young families get better
housing and a better place to live, to help retention in our military
forces, something I am sure you are very proud of. And certainly the
energy and water account in which you have done many things throughout
the country, and happily in our own area, the Temecula-Marrietta area
that has devastating floods, that we can finally move toward flood
protection for the many people that live in that area and the property
we would like to protect.
So Ron, it has been a privilege serving with you. I know that another
thing that I do not know if a lot of people know, he is probably the
finest golfer in the House. No doubt about it. He will be giving me at
least a stroke a hole from now on. I really appreciate that.
I thank the gentleman for his service and look forward to many years
to come of friendship.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Baca), another golfer, a Member from the other side of the aisle,
and also a neighbor and friend of Ron's.
[[Page 24365]]
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be up here to say a
few words about an individual. I am the new kid on the block. I just
got elected not too long ago. I said, who is Ron Packard? But, you know
what, since I have gotten to know Ron Packard, basically he reached out
and touched the lives of many of us.
You may think the type of relationship he built here on a bipartisan
is very important. I know we are going to miss you. I know I am going
to miss you, since I am relatively new here. I know, not only because
you are on the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water, but what you have done throughout the area is you really have
left a legacy for many other individuals in the community, because
truly your legislation and your policies have been bipartisan, in the
interests of California, in the interests of the Nation.
That is important for people to remember when they look at a
legislator that is serving us. That is why not only is he well liked
and loved in his district, but throughout the Nation and by many of us.
You truly are a leader, a visionary, an individual who cares about not
only our communities as a whole, and in your district, but you are an
individual that is willing to listen on a bipartisan basis and say what
is important for our Nation, what is important for California, and take
action, which is very important on a bipartisan basis.
As the new kid on the block, I find that very energizing, I find that
very enthusiastic, and I find that very motivating, because it is
important to get motivated. Everybody told me, when you come up here,
Joe, it is going to be so partisan. I found out that not everything is
so partisan. Sometimes, yes, but there are individuals that are not,
and you truly have developed a kind of friendship and you have opened
the doors to many individuals to say what is it that you have to say
that is good for California, what is it that is good for all of us. If
it is good, I am willing to listen. That kind of relationship and kind
of friendship, there is no dollar value that you can put on it.
It truly has been an honor to be your friend and know you this short
period of time. I wish you were here longer. But I know that you left a
legacy, not only the legacy in policy, but the legacy in golf. You
truly are one individual that has been an outstanding golfer. A lot us
are going to try to follow in the same footsteps, and hopefully we can.
Thank you very much for serving the State of California and our Nation.
Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr.
Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Joe Baca, a Member
from the other side of the aisle, for giving tribute to someone that we
cherish very, very much.
You know, Ron Packard was a write-in, and what a rich legacy he gave
the constituents of North County. Much of the district I now represent
was Ron's former district, and his legacy was hard to keep up with. As
a matter of fact, when I go up there, they used to tell me, well, ``Ron
didn't do it that way, Duke.'' But Ron gave me a lot of guidance.
Ron Packard, Duncan Hunter, myself and Brian Bilbray represent North
County, San Diego and San Diego City, both on authorization and
appropriations, and I want to thank you for your leadership and what
you were able to help us with. Not only from the appropriations, but
Ron also knows how to breach partisanship and work with Members on the
other side, as you just witnessed with Joe Baca.
But he is no nonsense, and his style is that of a grandfather to a
child. If you were bad on this House floor, or very partisan, Ron,
through his leadership, was not above going after somebody that was
partisan. He was also not afraid to call for removal of the President
or a cabinet member when he thought it was within his value system, and
he had the strength of a leader to carry that through.
Ron loved public service. He loved his wife, Jean, and his family,
but his family might be described as a covey, a herd, a flock, or just
maybe a large group. Ron has seven children, 34 grandchildren and three
great-grandchildren, the last we heard; and I am sure that that number
is going to go up.
But I think it also shows the competitiveness of Ron Packard. I would
like to give a story off the Hill. Ron does love golf, with a passion,
and if he loses a dime, I mean, he frets for a week if he loses a dime.
He is a fierce competitor. As a matter of fact, right there where he is
sitting at this moment he was sitting with Duncan Hunter one night.
Now, Ron is a very good golfer, in the 70s or 90s. Duncan Hunter is
of equal caliber, in the 70s or 80s. I am lucky to break 100, so I am
always asking for strokes on the golf course on the weekends from these
two rascals, but they will not give it. Sometimes they cave in.
They were discussing something, and I was sitting behind them waiting
for them to finish. Come to find out, they were plotting on Saturday
when we went to the Old Soldiers Home golf course, both of them were
going to show up with their arms in slings so they would not have to
give me a stroke a hole that game.
Well, they did not see me slip out behind, they did not know the
stealthiness of one Member; and, when we showed up, I had my arms in
two slings, so they had to give me a stroke a hole.
But I thought I would share this letter. I thought enough of this, I
got this just a couple of years ago from Ron, to show you what a
competitor he is. I would like to read it. He says, ``Dear Duke, you
can have my wife, you can have my children, my grandchildren, my house,
my car, my good name, but never, never, never, ever a stroke a hole.
Signed, Ron Packard.''
God bless you, Ron. We love you.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to be here tonight to
honor Ron Packard. It is not a happy occasion, however. It is not
happy, and it does not make me happy and does not make us happy that we
will not have Ron Packard with us to help us and to guide us and direct
us and to cheer us in the years ahead in this body.
We will remain friends, we will remain people who respect Ron Packard
forever, but we will sorely miss you. This is something that I say from
the heart.
Ron has been a father figure, especially for those of us in the
Republican Party and the Republican delegation from Orange County. He
has been truly a father figure, a kind father. He has been a hard-
working father, he has been a caring father, and he has been a wise
father, and all of the things you think of when you think about a good
man and a person of integrity, of strength, that is what you think of,
that is what we think of, the people who have worked with him so many
years and relied upon his strength of character and his cheerfulness,
that is what we think of when we think of Ron Packard.
Ron started his career as a dentist. I always find it is fascinating
to talk to people, as I have spoken to Ron for many hours, about what
they did in the previous career before actually coming here to
Washington, D.C. Actually I know it is hard to say you were thrilled to
hear stories of his dentistry, but it made him a real human being to
me, and realizing you could actually go into a dentist's office and
have Ron Packard there, you know, him leaning over you and saying this
is going to hurt me as much as it is you, and you realize that is
really true; that Ron is such a sympathetic person and empathetic with
people, that he was as a dentist and a human being was very successful
outside of the political arena.
Also we know that Ron Packard served in the Armed Forces. I know he
has several stories which he will not tell in public about the Armed
Forces. He served his country and he had a good time doing it, but he
also was very dedicated to his country. Ron is the true image of a
Patriot, of an
[[Page 24366]]
American Patriot. American patriots, some of us in the conservative
movement think patriots are the solemn guys and just repeating slogans
about the country. Ron is an honest, honest patriotic person. He is an
American, a true American, and you can sense that in his heart.
{time} 1945
How one can tell that this is so evident, not only to us, but to his
constituents, as has been mentioned here several times, Ron did not win
his first race right off the bat. Ron won a write-in race. Now, with a
name like Rohrabacher, I can tell my colleagues that that would have
been absolutely impossible, but even with a name like Packard, which
anybody can spell, it has only happened 4 times in the entire history
of the United States Congress.
Why did this happen? What was the issue which made people in his
district take the time to fill out that name? What was it that
motivated them? What was the crying need that said, we need Ron Packard
in that first election? It was one word, and the word is integrity. The
people in his district knew that they needed integrity and they called
out for it and they knew that Ron Packard was the candidate, even
though they had to go out of the way and do more work to get him in by
writing his name in, to get him in this position. Of course, since then
he has been winning every election by huge majorities.
As a Member of Congress and the dean of the Orange County delegation,
he has given all of us direction. We have looked at his hard work, we
have looked at his fairness and his willingness always to lend a
helping hand to others on both sides of the aisle, and yes, to give
advice. We look at those things as a role model for the rest of us. I
came in in 1988 and Ron was already a veteran. I will have to say that
what he has offered us and offered me personally has been very, very
advantageous. He has given me a lot of professional guidance on how I
should be operating here as a Member of Congress, but he has also
served as a role model and given professional advice, or I should say
personal advice.
Ron is a model for us, both professionally and personally. Ron, I
might add, in the last election showed his values and showed how
important values are to him by taking a lead in California in trying to
pass the Save the Family or Protect the Family Act, which is basically
designed to protect the institution of the family in California. Also,
the efforts he has made to make sure that the Boy Scouts are not forced
into lowering their moral standards or giving up the word ``God'' in
their scout oath.
Mr. Speaker, I was just married 3 years ago, and I will close with
this. I hope that I have as much happiness in my life and that it shows
on my face and in my life as much as Ron's family life and the
happiness and joy that he has had has had on his life, because he has
been a shining example to all of us of what marriage and what love
between people is all about. We will miss you, Ron. Your presence will
not be forgotten; it will shine on as long as the rest of us are here.
Thank you very much for all you have done for us and for what you have
done for the United States of America.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to be very kind to Ron,
because as I have been listening to some of my other colleagues who are
going to follow me, I think that this will end up as something other
than a love fest. I have just heard a story that has not been shared
with me that in fact our colleagues will get to hear from my dear
friend and classmate, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) in a
few minutes about Ron's earlier life.
So let me take a couple of minutes and be very kind. I know that many
people focus on the divisiveness that exists here in the Congress and
the partisan antipathy that regularly goes on, but there is, in fact, a
camaraderie. Then, when we look at the California congressional
delegation, the California delegation is known for being
extraordinarily divisive: Californians all hate each other; the
Democrats and Republicans do not get along; the Republicans are all
divided; the Democrats are all divided. If the truth were to be known,
we rally, and Ron Packard was key to putting together the kind of
solidarity which we frankly do enjoy today.
I will always remember many late-night meetings which members of the
California congressional delegation held, and Ron Packard was always
there. He had as a top priority bringing our delegation together, and
he was key to that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard about his wife, Jean, and this huge family,
and he is the only guy I know who will actually look you in the eye and
say that he does not know the names of some of his relatives. Somebody
talked about the fact that he has a number of grandchildren and 7
children, and that when they have family reunions, the Packards have
hundreds, I think it may be even thousands, who gather together for
family reunions. It is a very, very impressive family that he has. I
hope one day he gets to meet all of them.
I will say that when we look at the work that he has done on the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water, most recently, I have to say that
this very soft-spoken dentist, the former mayor of Carlsbad, has stood
up in meetings, and now that he is getting ready to leave, I think I
can share this, that he has made it very clear that if Members of
Congress have been fortunate enough to have their issues that are
priorities for them included in legislation, they had better vote for
the legislation. Ron very calmly, very firmly makes that statement, and
he does it with a kind of confidence that only a powerful cardinal can
exercise around here.
So we are going to miss Ron. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter) and I were just talking about the fact that Ron is our junior
colleague. We had the privilege of coming here with Ronald Reagan back
in 1980 and then, as many have said, Ron shocked the world of being the
person, I guess the fourth, to win that famous write-in election, and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has all kinds of stories
about that write-in election that he will probably share with us.
So let me just say to Ron and Jean, his wonderful wife who has stood
by him, and I have had the privilege of traveling with them and
spending time with other members of their family, they will be sorely
missed. The California delegation has come together in large part due
to the commitment that Ron Packard made to that goal, and I shall
always be grateful to him for that.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to another strong member of our
delegation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my thanks also to Mr.
Packard who has done so much during his 18 years here in this body for
the State of California and everybody not only who lives in his
district, but in mine and in Mr. McKeon's, Mr. Hunter's, Mr. Dreier's,
and others. I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has some
great stories that are coming. We have heard them in our luncheons and
been regaled with them. They are good. I hope that they are presented
and taken in the spirit of camaraderie that we have.
Ron has a quiet leadership style that, as the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) said, members of both sides of the aisle
appreciate and, frankly, rally around. He has been very fair to all
members, regardless of party affiliation. Frankly, I have only been
here for just about 2 years now, but in my short time, I have tried to
emulate his qualities: humility, fairness, honesty, accountability, and
frankly, the integrity that just comes. If one gets the chance to work
with Ron, it just comes out. It is just so clear. His qualities have
won him many friends and admirers here in Washington and in California,
as we can see from him being returned 8 times from his initial
election.
[[Page 24367]]
Mr. Speaker, on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, Mr. Packard has
provided critical assistance for the safety of Americans across the
Nation and particularly for Californians and specifically for people
who live in the Sacramento area. He understands our challenges along
the Sacramento River and the American River, and his work has led to a
significant increase in the level of flood protection for the people
that live in my area, and for this I am grateful. It makes a
difference.
Mr. Speaker, Ron Packard, as others have said, is very devoted to his
family, which is and always has been his most important priority in
life. As he takes his bride, Jean, and returns to California and leaves
this august body, I know that he will enjoy spending time again with
them in the manner in which perhaps every one of us should, and
devoting more time to those that he loves as family members. I say to
the gentleman, I appreciate your leadership and guidance, and you will
be missed. Godspeed.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Knollenberg), a colleague of Mr. Packard's on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I too rise this evening to pay tribute to Ron Packard,
who I consider to be a distinguished statesman from the State of
California, and on this occasion of his retirement at the end of the
106th Congress, I wish him well.
I have known Ron and I have known his wife, Jean. I have not known
the 7 children and, I believe, 34 grandchildren and the great
grandchildren, but that will come. I have had the pleasure to travel
with he and Jean on some CODELs, I would not say around the world, but
certainly to various parts of the world, and we have had I think some
very interesting experiences on those trips and I have gotten to know
he and Jean. We find that his dedication to his family and to his
church is very, very strong. It is unwavering. The fact that he is a
dentist and that he moved from being a dentist into Congress is a
little bit of a change, I guess, but others do the same from the field
of medicine, so that is not so unusual. But he has made the change and
he has done it, as somebody has already said, several members have
mentioned the fact that he was only the fourth member, only the fourth
in history to actually come to the House via the write-in process. I
never believed anybody could get here by the write-in process, but Ron
did. The residents of his district in southern California have seen fit
to send him back to Washington, and by overwhelming majorities, every
election since, back to 1982. I think well they should, because Ron
Packard has been a respected and dedicated member of this House ever
since.
He has served his California constituents well. Not only that, he has
served the Nation well, and that includes his service in the Navy and
his time as the mayor of Carlsbad, California and, of course, the 18
years here in the House.
As we know, Ron Packard is the chairman of the House Subcommittee on
Energy and Water, and it has been my privilege to serve with him on
that committee as well as on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations for
the past few years. He has also served, as we know, on the Subcommittee
on Military Construction and the Subcommittee on Legislative
Appropriations, as well as his efforts on the Subcommittee on
Transportation.
I can assure my colleagues that the Energy and Water bill is no easy
task, and let me say a little bit about why. It was only through Ron's
tireless dedication and self sacrifice that made difficult matters
appear mundane. Energy and Water runs the gamut of issues, hitting upon
matters of national and energy security. That bill provides vital
important funding for such items as the Nation's stockpile stewardship,
Cold War weapons plant cleanup and energy supply, only to name a few.
But here is the part that gets tough. It not only funds hundreds, even
thousands, of local water priorities performed by the Corps of
Engineers and conducted in just about every Member's district, and the
member from California has brought balance, he has brought common sense
in approaching the Energy and Water bill discussions during his tenure.
In fact, this year, Ron Packard had to deal with some 3,000 requests.
Now, those were not all Member requests, but a good many were and the
rest came from a variety of sources. All of these have to come before
the committee, all have to be dealt with. His hard work and dedication
resulted in a timely and reasonable piece of legislation that covered
all of those bases, and it took patience and it took thoughtfulness and
it took courtesy, and he had all of those qualities to meet and deal
with people and with their requests.
Ron Packard's retirement will leave a set of shoes that will be
difficult, if not impossible, to fill. Mr. Speaker, I think I echo the
sentiments of all of the Members who have spoken here this evening in
saying that this gentleman will certainly be missed.
I am certain that Ron will make good use of his time in the coming
months. I can only guess that golf courses around the country will be
richer, will be the richer for it. Ron, congratulations to you and to
Jean. Enjoy your retirement, and thank you very much.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to another good friend of Ron's
and a member of the California delegation (Mr. Doolittle).
{time} 2000
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) for organizing this special order.
Ron is obviously someone who is looked upon very favorably here in
the House and who is a friend to all. And in the frenetic pace that we
have, we do not take time to stop and pause upon the contributions of
any given individual until the time of his or her retirement.
It is unfortunate that it is that way, but at least we do have this
occasion to pause for that moment, and many things have been said. Ron
has a very interesting life and a number of significant
accomplishments.
I just want to provide just two or three brief snapshots of my
encounters with Ron. When I was a brand-new Member here, 10 years ago,
I would take the Metro in; and so if we stayed late at night, although
I could have taken the Metro back out, Ron lived out near us, and he
was kind enough to give me a ride.
So he introduced me to an interesting way of getting home. But the
best way, and I always take it whenever I am driving, and that is you
go down 395 South. You get off at Maine Avenue. You go past the
Jefferson and Vietnam Veterans and Lincoln Memorials right along the
Potomac River.
There are quite a few little turns you have to know how to make, but
you end up going up over the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge looking past the
Kennedy Center, and you are on 66 West. And, Ron, every time I go that
way I have you to thank for that. I think of you. I think of you every
single time. I do think of you teaching me how to get home that way.
We have another thing that is somewhat unusual. When we were not back
in our districts and happened to be here for the weekend, Ron and I
were members of the same congregation, the Oakton Ward of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And Ron served for many days for the
instructor of priesthood group.
I might add Orrin and Elaine Hatch are members of that ward. And
Jean, of course. Ron and Jean's daughter Lisa. We miss them, I must
say, as they have been wrapping up their affairs and making the
transition completely back to California.
They have moved back with their family, and we do not see Ron so much
in that capacity, but we did see him there this last Sunday.
Anyway, I treasure those memories.
Lastly, but not least and most directly related to our legislative
life, I had the privilege of working with Ron on a very important issue
to California, the subject of water and specifically, the subject of
cow fed. Ron is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, and as we all know, there is an appropriations
subcommittee that handles the money to be spent for each of the
different policy committees.
[[Page 24368]]
The policy subcommittee that I chair is the Subcommittee on Water and
Power. And so we worked rather closely together on this very
contentious issue of water, and that is really not resolved as of this
moment and will be taken up in the next Congress.
But I do want to say this, rather than simply doing whatever he liked
as the appropriations chairman, because frankly, if that power is used
in that fashion, legislating on appropriations bills can occur and can
occur contrary to whatever the policy committee would like to have
happen. I do not think that that is appropriate, but it occasionally
happens around here.
It did not happen with Ron and his subcommittee, and I really value,
Ron, how closely you worked with us and the authorizers to try to reach
an accommodation on that. You and I and our committees were together,
but not all the parties in this process were, and so it has not worked
out yet; but you certainly gave it the maximum effort. I am convinced
the foundation that we laid will eventually be built upon to resolve
this problem.
Lastly, the last personal snapshot, as you heard what a great golfer
Ron is, and I think he is one of the best in the House. But he and his
wife also love games, board games, and we had a couple of delightful
evenings over the years enjoying those experiences together as couples.
So I want to say thank you. We will miss you, and Godspeed in your
new endeavors.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from San Diego,
California (Mr. Hunter), another good friend.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) for putting this special order together, and we
talked about the serious side of Ron I think a little too much tonight.
I need to tell you a couple of stories about this guy.
The first story is, a number of people have talked about his
patriotic service to the Nation as a Naval officer, indeed, a dentist;
and there is one story that is floating around Southern California
about a certain dentist who was seeing a large number of recruits. They
were running them through pretty rapidly, filling teeth, pulling a few
here and there and getting them in shape to go overseas.
Ron and his cohort there, the other dentist who worked in the office,
decided they would have a little fun. It involved a new technique, the
technique of utilizing dynamite to remove bad teeth. So they had a
rather large, naive young man who was in the chair, a little bit
apprehensive about this dental work that was to begin.
Ron very ceremoniously opened up a large volume, a big book; and he
said we are going to try the new blasting technique on your teeth. I
hope you like it. It is experimental, and Ron proceeded to take a
piece, a little roll of gauze that he dipped in iodine that looked like
a miniature dynamite stick.
And as this horrified recruit, who had been promised good dental care
in the U.S. Navy, lay back in that chair with just a look of horror on
his face, Ron inserted this small stick of dynamite under one of the
molars or on top of one of his molars, he looked back at the book and
he said it now says we have to attach the fuse, and he pulled out a
piece of dental floss, which if you light it will in fact fizzle and
sputter and acted something like a fuse, then he plugged the fuse into
the small stick of dynamite that was laying on top of a now horrified
recruit's back molar.
Ron then, a very, very solemn man. We all know Ron can be a solemn
person. When Ron is solemn we all get solemn, and he very solemnly
skipped a few lines in the book, and he says to his friend, his fellow
dentist, that we have to take cover. So they led the fuse over behind
the desk and got down behind the desk; and Ron then lit the fuse, and
as this fuse sputtered and fizzled and the flame, the spark got closer
and closer to this young recruit, the recruit got more and more
agitated, as you may imagine, and finally leaped up with a squeak and
raced out of the office.
Ron was required shortly thereafter to visit the commanding officer.
And this is pure Ron Packard. He has gotten away with stuff all of his
life. He very solemnly went in and began to explain what had happened
very truthfully, and his commanding officer wanted to be very severe,
but after Ron had gone about halfway through the story, his commanding
officer could not help himself, and he burst out laughing.
He finally just admonished Ron and his colleague to get out of there,
so they left. They promised not to harass any more recruits, and that
is one of my favorite Navy stories.
But that epitomizes the sense of humor that Ron has and Ron has
carried that sense of humor over to today. In fact, he has a great
sense of humor. He actually told the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) and I we had good golf swings before he proceeded to take
us for a small wager, of course not illegal; but we have had a lot of
fun out there playing golf.
Ron is a fairly tight-fisted guy. I had an opportunity to actually
make a hole-in-one in a golf tournament that my colleagues played in,
and I thought I would get a car. But I was informed that since Ron was
running the tournament, I would not get any car. And I think I got just
a couple of dollars for making this fabulous hole-in-one, even though
another member of the conference then got a very nice car after he made
a hole-in-one a couple of tournaments later.
Ron wanted to present me with my car this year, which I understand
was a small model about 5 inches long; so, Ron, I want to get that as
soon as possible.
My other favorite story about Ron Packard involves his family, and it
involves where he comes from in that great area of the Snake River
Plains in Idaho, where people work from dawn to dark and have a
tremendous work ethic and where everybody looks the other guy right
straight in the eye and where literally a big piece of American
wilderness was carved into a very productive land, and that is where
Ron and his 16 brothers and sisters, 14 boys and 3 girls, grew up near
Meridian, Idaho, and the Snake River Plains there.
His father was working for Morrison, Knudson just prior to the
Japanese bombing in Pearl Harbor in World War II, and he was on Wake
Island. He was working as a civilian worker. When Wake Island was taken
shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor he was captured by the
Japanese. His father became a POW.
I think what his father did in that POW camp represents the character
that Ron took on, and that has followed him all of his life, and that
is that Ron's dad who became a POW was taken on one of the so-called
hell ships to Japan and treated very brutally, helped to take care of
the other POWs.
He became the historian of the POW camp, and he wrote down the
history of all of the members of that POW camp, and he kept a log on
what happened to them. As you know, 30 percent of our POWs were killed
in World War II that were incarcerated in Japan.
He hid that little history, as I recall, in a piece of bamboo. And
when he came back to the States, he made sure that he contacted every
family that had a loved one in that POW camp and gave them the history
of their loved one, who in most cases did not make it back or in many
cases did not make it back before he went back to his own family, and
then like Ron Packard, he told them, all the kids, what had happened,
and then he talked very little about it. And that is Ron.
He is the kind of guy who has got great character, a great caring and
does not dwell on himself a lot. We have had little cabals, as the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said in the California
delegation. I like a good cabal myself, and a good secret meeting; Ron
Packard is a guy that likes to bring people together and likes to put
oil in the water and bring out the best in everyone.
He really epitomizes what is best about this Congress. He has got a
good heart. He looks you in the eye. He helps you whenever he can, and
he is a great citizen. And I cannot help but think that it was that
upbringing that the 17 boys and girls, 14 boys and 3 girls, on the
Snake River Plains of
[[Page 24369]]
Idaho and all that hard work that they had to endure and keeping that
family going without a father that made Ron Packard what he is.
We have been better for his presence. God bless you, Ron.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to another good friend of Mr.
Packard's, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who served
with him on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I sat in my office listening to speeches
being made, and I thought to myself how many times I had shared in
private conversations with so many people both in this Congress and
outside, how much admiration and respect I had for Ron Packard. I
thought to myself, maybe this is a good time to share with the world at
large exactly what some of my feelings are for him.
Mr. Speaker, I met Ron first when I showed up to play in one of his
golf tournaments, and I think when he saw me, he thought maybe I had
strayed on to the wrong golf course. But we struck up a relationship on
that day; and some time after that, I was elected by my party to serve
on the Committee on Appropriations and of course I sought a seat on the
Committee on Energy and Water Development, and much to my pleasant
surprise, I found out that Ron Packard was the Chair of that
subcommittee.
I cannot think of anybody with whom I have worked since being in this
body that I felt more fairly treated than the time I spent on that
subcommittee. And of course, I took leave from the committee and am
still on leave from that committee and his subcommittee. We still find
time to interact with each other.
Quite frankly, I am not too sure he didn't treat me more fairly in my
absence than he would have if I had been there to argue my case in
person. But this past Members golf tournament I had the opportunity to
play in a foursome with Ron Packard, and I always thought of how much I
admired and respected him, until that day when he politely taught me
just how much better a golfer he is than I am, but he did it in such a
way that I really enjoyed that thumping you gave me on that day.
{time} 2015
But all of that aside, as I said earlier, in this body, I think, as
some things get contentious, we often plead our partisan cases in such
a way that even we are often not proud of how we have done it. But I
have never seen an instance when my interaction with Ron Packard was
not of the highest regards for each other.
I wanted to come to the floor tonight and say how much I appreciate
serving with him, how much I appreciate my friendship with him, and to
wish him Godspeed in all that is before him in life and let him know
that, if ever he comes to South Carolina, I want to repay that thumping
on the golf course that he gave me not too long ago. I thank him and
Godspeed.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Orange
County, California (Mr. Cox), one of the leaders of our California
delegation.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California very much
for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to join with this distinguished group of Members
on both sides of the aisle in paying tribute to my friend and our
colleague, this great national leader from Southern California, Ron
Packard.
I, too, have enjoyed listening to the stories tonight on the floor,
and I hope the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has, too. There
are many to tell about a man whose time here in Congress has done so
much to improve our national life and to improve this institution.
Ron and Jean and their seven children and their 34 grandchildren are
a family that the Packards have made us all feel a part of. I have met
some, but not all of the Packard family. Perhaps someday I will be able
to do that. But the family members that I have been introduced to and I
have met are fine men and women that say a lot about Ron and Jean.
I have my own much younger family. It seems to me, given the natural
limits to mortal life, I can never catch up. But I know from the task
of being a father what a measure of our own worth that is. That is one
and only one, a big one, area of Ron's life in which he has set an
example for the rest of us.
When I first came to Congress, I had the opportunity to serve on the
Public Works and Transportation Committee with my neighbor in Orange
County to the south, Ron Packard. Ron was and is an expert in aviation,
served on that as well as other subcommittees in the Congress, and
continued to have even greater influence in that area on the Committee
on Appropriations where, as has been remarked upon several times
tonight, he is a cardinal, a term of reverence, well deserved in his
case for someone who wields extraordinary power of the purse in our
constitutional system.
I have had the opportunity even to have some vacation dinners with
Ron and Jean. Rebecca and I have shared a nice meal at some romantic
spots in Hawaii together and gotten to know Ron in that way personally,
and it has been a lot of fun. I hope we have the opportunity to
continue to do that even after he retires, because we are Southern
California neighbors.
It has been mentioned because it is such an extraordinary fact of
Ron's career here how he got here in the first place, one of only four
Americans in our national history to come to this people's House as a
write-in candidate.
It is extraordinary in a time in election season right now when we
are all talking about campaign finance reform and the nefarious
influence of special interests to think about what this means in Ron's
case. Ron got here in exactly the opposite way, not because of special
interests, not because he was even the nominee of a major party. He was
not. He had to run against the Democratic nominee, run against the
Republican nominee as an individual. He was Ron Packard first and
became the party's standard bearer thereafter because the people wrote
him in.
Ron Packard and I share another distinction that I am very proud of.
Possibly this means more to a Republican than a Democrat. But Ron and I
are the only Members to have our legislation become law,
notwithstanding the veto of President Clinton, in two full terms of the
Clinton administration: in my case, the Securities Litigation Reform
Act; in his case something even more important, I have to say, and that
is rebuilding our Nation's military.
Because as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction
of our Committee on Appropriations, he put before this House what was
necessary to rebuild our military, to provide the resources that armed
services needed. He convinced our colleagues on both sides of the
aisle. They voted to support his legislation. The same was true down
the corridor in the other body, the United States Senate.
We sent that legislation to the President. When the President made
the rare decision to cast a veto that he should not have, the Congress
reacted quickly and supported Ron Packard, even against the wishes of
the President of the United States, because they knew he was supporting
the United States military and that he was right.
Now, it should be said about a Republican who serves on the Committee
on Appropriations that there are temptations. The whole term limits
movement has a reason in America because of those temptations, because
people who serve too long in Washington find it too easy to spend other
people's money on pork barrel projects, on wasteful Washington ways.
Sometimes they forget about the people back home. It is sad to say that
temptation is strongest when one is closest to the money on the
committee charged with spending it, the Committee on Appropriations in
the House and in the Senate.
So how honored have we been as American citizens to be served by a
chairman on the Committee on Appropriations who took his trust so
seriously that, in discharging it, he actually reduced spending.
When Ron Packard first became a chairman on the Committee on
Appropriations in 1995, he quickly sent a bill
[[Page 24370]]
to the floor of the House of Representatives that did not just cut
spending for the benefit of taxpayers, it cut spending at home where,
presumably, it would hurt Members of Congress themselves most, in our
own legislative budget. He cut spending by Congress on itself by fully
one-third, an extraordinary achievement when we had a new majority, a
new Congress, under the leadership of Ron Packard.
In fact, throughout his career in the majority as a cardinal, as a
chairman on the Committee on Appropriations, Ron Packard has been
garnering awards, not for bringing home the bacon, but from such groups
as Americans for Tax Reform, which rated him a taxpayer's hero, and the
National Taxpayers Union, which rated Ron Packard an appropriator and a
chairman and a cardinal in the top 5 percent of people in this entire
Congress interested in cutting spending.
This is an extraordinary accomplishment and something, Mr. Speaker,
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) can not only be proud
of, but that all of his colleagues here are proud of. He has made us
all proud. Everything that he has done in his career, even before he
came to Congress, as a local leader, as a mayor, as a member of the
city council, as a dentist with his own practice has distinguished him.
But in this Congress for 18 years, everyone on both sides of the
aisle, as the gentleman is hearing tonight from his friends, has found
him to be scrupulously honest in his dealings, to be always fair, and,
just as importantly, to be hard working and is represented by the fact
that he got here as a write-in candidate, a citizen legislator. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is, in short, everything that a
Member of Congress should be, everything a national leader should be.
It is well said that ours is a government of, by and for the people.
The for and by parts are very important. But remember that it is also a
government of the people, and that this Congress, which manufacturers
nothing, is simply the sum of the people who populate it, the people
who were chosen by the voters to come back here.
Therefore, by being who he has been, the fine gentleman that he has
been and is, the leader that he has been, the exemplar that he has been
for all of us, he have improved this institution, the people's House.
The Congress of the United States and thus our country is the better
for it.
It has been a privilege to know the gentleman from California (Mr.
Packard) and to work with him, and I look forward to continuing our
friendship in the years ahead.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the subject of my special order today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE RON PACKARD
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a response, but there
is one or two others that would like to say a word.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PACKARD. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) would also be pleased to be recognized before
the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) speaks. If the gentleman
would be willing to yield to him for 5 minutes, I will ask then for a
5-minute special order myself and yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard).
Mr. PACKARD. That will be fine.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very enjoyable evening. I
think there have been many great things said about a very great man.
Years ago, in 1982, my father-in-law, in one of his visits, said that
he had been asked to help a great man in his Congressional District to
run a write-in campaign for Congress. That man was Ron Packard.
Whenever my father-in-law would visit, he would tell us stories of
what they were doing and how they were preparing for the campaign. I
knew not much about the Congress and knew nothing about running a
campaign for Congress, and so I was not as impressed as I should have
been.
Now, having run a campaign and been elected to Congress, I know that
it is impossible to win on a write-in. I wish my father-in-law were
still alive, and I could tell him how great a job I think he did in
helping elect such a great man as Ron Packard to Congress.
Ron is in stature shorter than I am, but he is a man that I always
look up to. There have been a couple of stories told about how tight he
is with a penny or a dime. I think that if one knew his background one
would understand why the story told about how he was raised with 16
brothers and sisters and how every penny, every dime counted I think is
really important. It is reflected in one story that I have heard Ron
tell that I think shows how important money was to him and to his
family as they were growing up.
His family had a .22 and a shotgun, and it was very expensive for
them. It was hard for them to buy ammunition. But he tells of a story
one time that he and his brother went out hunting ducks, and they had
to wait till the ducks got in a line because they had to get as many as
they could with one shot.
The one brother shot as many as he could when they got in line with
the .22. Then, as the rest of the ducks took off, the second brother
shot with the shotgun. Then they went around and gathered up all the
ducks. They got 23 with one .22 shell and one shotgun shell.
The meat was important. The feathers were important for their pillows
and their quilts. They used every bit of those 23 ducks. Life was not
easy for them in Meridian, Idaho. But they did great things with their
lives.
We have heard lots of stories about Ron and his family. I know some
of his brothers. I know what great people they are. There are so many
things that we can learn from this great man.
He and I are from the same faith, and we believe the words of a
prophet that lived many years ago that said, ``whatever you achieve
outside the home is not as important as what you achieve within the
home.'' Ron has done a great thing both within and without the home,
but he has never forgotten his family.
Now, as he retires, he is going back to live in San Diego by other
members of his family. We will miss him here but know that he will
continue to do great things as he has throughout his life.
{time} 2030
I am very fortunate to call this great man a friend.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE RON PACKARD, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). Under a previous
order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I come tonight because I think
it is a testament of any Member of this House when someone on the other
side drops what they are doing to come and speak favorably on the
departure of a Member. I have come tonight because Ron Packard is a
friend of mine, one whom I admire immensely.
When I came to this House, I began to serve on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. There were a lot of times when I was
not quite clear as to what I would do in terms of asking for more
funding for California, but then I met a man who
[[Page 24371]]
was from California who knew exactly what I should be doing and how I
should do it. That man was Ron Packard.
Ron Packard represents the best in all of us in this House, whether
we are a Republican or a Democrat, because he simply puts his hands out
to give advice when one who was a freshman sought that advice. He made
me feel quite welcome to come to him and comfortable to come to him and
to seek that advice. I remember one time when I was asking for perhaps
more money than I should have for California, and he simply said, let
us get together and see what we can do to work this out.
I will always have fond memories of Ron Packard. And as he leaves
this House to go and be with his family and children and grandchildren,
I know that he will look back upon this House with fond memories, but
we want him to leave knowing that he had friends on both sides of this
aisle who not only recognized his experience and his expertise on
transportation and appropriation issues but also recognized his
friendship, his putting his hands out to both those across the aisle as
well as those who worked directly with him on the Republican side.
We wish the very best for Ron as he goes back to California. I know
he will not miss the traveling, coming back and forth from California,
but I hope he will miss us as his friends, because we certainly will
miss him and all of the great things that he has done to make the
people of California feel proud of him and to make this Nation feel
proud of him. I am happy to call him my friend.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying
tribute to our colleague, Mr. Packard, of California for the many years
of service and dedication he has given to this body and to the American
people.
Mr. Packard is retiring from this House after 18 years, and during
these years we have served together on the House Appropriations
Committee. He has risen in service to Chair one of our most important
subcommittees, and he has displayed outstanding leadership for the
nation in this capacity. Water resources and energy resources are
vitally important to the quality of life for our citizens, and Ron's
leadership has moved the U.S. to new levels of achievement in
addressing those needs. The confidence of those he represents was well
exemplified by the fact that Ron was only one of four in the history of
our nation who was elected by a write-in vote.
Ron, I join your many friends in the House in wishing you and Jean
years of happiness and good health.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend
and colleague, the gentleman from California Representative Ron
Packard, Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on
Appropriations. I am proud to recognize the gentleman for this
accomplishments and wish him continued success as he retires from the
United States Congress.
I have had the honor and pleasure to serve with Chairman Packard in
the Appropriations Committee and I can tell you from personal
experience that he is one of the hardest working and most effective
members of Congress. As Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee
on Appropriations, he has done an extraordinary job of balancing the
national and regional needs; and has always been a good steward of
federal funds. He is a leader who has proven he can get things done.
He is a strong friend of Florida and a great American. I thank him
for the continued support in working with me on various projects in my
City of Miami and my state of Florida. I know I speak for Members on
both sides of the aisle, when I say that Chairman Packard's calm
judgement, strong leadership, unfailing courtesy and good humor have
been truly appreciated in our deliberations and will be sorely missed.
Chairman Packard was first elected to Congress in 1982 by a write-in
vote, becoming only the fourth successful write-in candidate for
Congress in the history of the United States. Prior to his election to
Congress, he served four years as mayor of Carlsbad, California, in the
district he now represents. A dentist by education and profession, he
was always active in civic affairs and public service.
Chairman Packard, you can be very proud of your accomplishments here
and in the imprint that you have made in this institution and on the
nation. I wish you the very best in the new challenges you undertake.
Mr. Speaker, Congressman's Packard's retirement is a loss to this
institution, to his colleagues and in particular to his constituents.
He will be remembered for his commitment and leadership. The people of
California's 48th Congressional District will miss him, and so will we.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues from the
California delegation in congratulating Congressman Ron Packard on his
retirement after serving the people of Southern California for over 20
years. I would like to take a moment to honor him and his record of
service to California and the United States. Congressman Packard began
his long career of public service as a trustee of the Carlsbad Unified
School District. After serving on the Carlsbad City Council, and later
as Mayor of Carlsbad, Ron was elected to the House of Representatives
from California's 48th District. In his first election to the House, he
was only the fourth successful write-in candidate in U.S. history.
The citizens of Orange County, San Diego County and Riverside County,
who placed his name on that first ballot, returned Ron Packard to the
House eight more times. I join the other members of the San Diego
delegation in recognizing that the people of his district, of Southern
California, and of the United States have been well served by his
exemplary career.
As Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations,
Chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, and
Chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, Ron
Packard was a model of bipartisan leadership. He always worked with
Members on both sides of the aisle in a fair and balanced manner to
bring important legislation to a successful conclusion. He represents
how one can be a friendly and helpful person even to those, like
myself, with whom he disagreed on most policy issues.
Ron, as you look toward the future and a well-deserved retirement,
the people of Southern California and your colleagues from the
California delegation thank you for your fine example and wish you and
your wife, Jeanne, the best of luck.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, it has been my great privilege to serve in
this body for the last eighteen years with my California colleague, Ron
Packard, and on the Appropriations Committee for the last eight. I also
served on the Military Construction Subcommittee when he was its
chairman and with him on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
I have very much enjoyed his friendship, our common interest in the
great game of golf (at which he is very proficient, and I am,
unfortunately, not very), as well as the opportunity to work with him
on matters of mutual interest. He has always been fair, courteous, and
forthcoming in all our dealings, a man of impeccable honesty and
integrity, and the kind of representative for his constituents that
does this body proud.
While we have our differences philosophically--for example, on
voluntary family planning--I respect his commitments to his core
beliefs. People of good will in our system can always hold differing
convictions so long as they are mutually respected.
I wish Ron and his wife, Jean, a rich and full and enjoyable life in
retirement, the joys of his wonderful family, and, of course, lots of
superlative rounds on his favorite courses.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Congressman
Ron Packard as he prepares to retire at the end of the 106th Congress
and conclude his remarkable career as an elected representative. For 18
years, I have had the honor of serving with my distinguished California
colleague. Upon his arrival in 1982, Mr. Packard immediately immersed
himself in many of the most significant policy debates of the time by
serving on the Transportation and Science Committees. His vast
intellect and ability to work with Members in a bipartisan fashion
became apparent immediately, foreshadowing a long-standing career of
effective and responsible leadership. Mr. Packard eventually made the
transition to the Appropriations Committee where he went on to become
one of the most well respected Chairmen of the Military Construction
Subcommittee, and later the Energy and Water Subcommittee. Through his
extraordinary work, he has become one of the most ardent fiscal hawks,
has legislated against wasteful government spending and has
continuously fought to solve the many immigration challenges
confronting the state of California. Also, Mr. Packard has been a
constant champion of the men and women who serve in our armed forces,
and has led with a clear vision in working to meet the water,
environmental, and energy needs of California and our nation.
But given his lifetime of public service, Mr. Packard's success in
Congress comes as no surprise. That service began in the military as a
dentist with the U.S. Navy Dental Corps at
[[Page 24372]]
Camp Pendleton, California located in the congressional district he
would later represent. He soon became active in local and civic
affairs, first serving on the Carlsbad school board, then the Chamber
of Commerce, served two years on the Carlsbad City Council and
eventually became the mayor of Carlsbad in 1978. It was during these
years that the people of the 48th district in California learned of Mr.
Packard's ability to fairly and justly serve those he represented, and
as a result, they entrusted him with their congressional seat by
electing him as a write-in candidate in 1982.
Mr. Packard's career has been exemplified by the values of hard-work,
honor and integrity that are all too often absent in society. Through
his ability to work in a bipartisan manner, he has been one of the most
potent and influential leaders in this body and for 18 years has worked
tirelessly to serve his constituents and our nation. Although my
colleagues and I will miss his presence, we wish him well as he
prepares for retirement and pursues new challenges. Ron, best wishes to
you and your family.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE RON PACKARD, MEMBER OF CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Packard).
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle) for yielding to me.
I am overwhelmed by my colleagues and the generous, kind things that
they have said. I have had the privilege to serve in Congress for 18
years now. I shall be eternally grateful to my constituents, the voters
of my district, in San Diego County, Orange County, and Riverside
County for allowing me to represent them here in Congress. To
participate in the greatest legislative body in the world is a
privilege that only a few have experienced, and I have been blessed
beyond measure with that privilege.
When I first came to Congress, there were several major goals that I
had hoped we could achieve together in our government. We were awash in
deficit spending, adding to the national debt between $200 billion and
$400 billion a year. I wanted to see our government live within its
revenues and balance its budget. I wanted to restructure the
entitlements of welfare and Medicare and Social Security. I wanted to
reduce the heavy tax burden of our taxpayers. I wanted to strengthen
our defense. I wanted to reduce the size of government and make it more
efficient and more effective.
Who could have dreamed 18 years ago that we would be able,
Republicans and Democrats together, to accomplish these remarkable
goals? It has been a great time to serve in the House of
Representatives. The opportunity to serve with each Member of Congress
has been a wonderful treat, both sides of the aisle. I have not found
it any more difficult to love and appreciate my Democratic friends than
my Republican friends.
To work with a competent and loyal staff has been a great privilege.
I have had great staff members throughout my career.
To serve with President Reagan and President Bush and, yes, with
President Clinton, has been a very memorable experience for me.
I sincerely appreciate the kind and generous remarks of my colleagues
from California and from all the other States that have been here. I
love them dearly.
Lastly, I must express my deep love and admiration that I have for my
wife, Jean. This job is particularly difficult for spouses and for
family members. No Member of Congress could enjoy love and support and
devotion more than I have from my wonderful wife and family. I am so
fortunate.
I love what I do in this hallowed Chamber. I love America. I will
miss dearly my colleagues, my constituents, my staff. I will miss the
work. I love what we do here. I will not miss the uncertain schedule. I
will not miss the fund-raising nor the campaigning. I will not miss the
regular traveling from coast to coast. But I have learned that there
are only three ways to leave this place, and two of them are real bad.
I am leaving the right way, at the top of my career.
I am a praying man. I pray every day. And I will pray daily for all
of my colleagues who continue this great work and service in this great
deliberative body. I will miss you all very dearly. I love you and I
love the work. I bid you a very fond farewell.
I want to thank those that put together this most memorable hour
together. I deeply appreciate my colleagues, all of you. Thank you
very, very much.
____________________
HEALTH CARE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I am going to be joined with
some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle to discuss
health care and what we believe should be done in the waning days of
this Congress. Unfortunately, most of what we are about to discuss is
part of the unfinished agenda here which I have been somewhat critical
of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives for
because these health care issues have not been resolved; yet they are
very important to the average American.
When I talk about health care concerns, I believe that they are the
Nation's number one priority right now. They concern matters that
affect the daily lives of our constituents and which I think, if they
were resolved and if they were attended to by the Republican leadership
and passed and sent to the President in legislative form, would
actually make a difference in people's lives. So for that reason I
regret that on the issues such as prescription drugs for seniors under
Medicare, HMO reform, and also increasing access to health care for
those who are uninsured this Congress really has not accomplished much.
I do not really expect much to be accomplished in the next few days
that we are here, but I do think it is unfortunate that the Republican
leadership has so far, and has over the 2 years, refused to address
these issues in a meaningful way.
I just wanted to summarize, if I could, and put them also in the
context of the presidential debate, because I think that health care
policy has really been one of the defining issues in the context of the
presidential debate and the presidential campaign.
Let me mention first the issue of prescription drugs. We know that
our senior citizens and the disabled, people who currently are eligible
for Medicare, many of them do not have access to prescription drugs
because it is not a basic benefit under the Medicare program. What the
Democrats have been saying is that we would like it to be a basic
Medicare benefit. We would like it to be included under the rubric of
the Medicare program because we know that Medicare has been very
successful in addressing the problems of hospital care, the need for
hospital care and the need for physicians' care.
If a person now reaches the age of 65 or is eligible because they are
disabled, they do get their hospital insurance taken care of under
Medicare. And if they pay a certain amount a month, about $40 or so per
month, then they have also their physician's care taken care of. But
that is not the case with prescription drugs. Some seniors are able to
get a prescription drug benefit if they are fortunate enough to have an
HMO in their area that may cover it in some way. But that is not the
majority.
Some senior citizens outside of Medicare are able to get coverage
because they have it as part of an employer retirement plan or maybe
they are eligible for veterans benefits as part of the Federal
Government; but generally most seniors do not get either adequate
prescription drug coverage or, in many cases, no prescription drug
coverage at all.
Basically, using the example of Medicare part B for physician's care,
what the Democrats have been saying and what Vice President Gore has
been
[[Page 24373]]
saying is that we will establish a new part D, for example, under
Medicare. And just like with part B for the physician's care, seniors
would pay so much per month. It would probably start as little as $25 a
month; but as the benefits increase, it might get to be more. They
would then get a certain prescription drug benefit that would be
guaranteed, which would make it possible for them to simply go to their
local pharmacy, and it would be covered. They would have a choice of a
pharmacy to go to, and any prescription drug that is recommended by
their physician or by the pharmacist as medically necessary would be
covered.
Very simple concept, really. No magic here. It is simply included
under the Medicare program. Well, the Republican leadership and the
Republican presidential candidate, Governor Bush, do not like this. I
think, frankly, though they may not admit it, that they do not like
Medicare very much, and they do not like the idea of a public program
like Medicare including prescription drugs. So what they propose I call
a voucher. Basically, they say they are going to give a certain amount
of money in the form of a subsidy or a voucher to seniors who are below
a certain income, not the majority of seniors, but just those who are
below a certain income. Those seniors can take this voucher, and they
can go out in the private marketplace to see if they can find an HMO or
some other kind of insurance plan that will cover them.
There are a lot of problems with that. First of all, it is not under
Medicare, so it is not going to be universal. Most seniors would not be
able to take advantage of it. In addition to that, with the exception
of the HMOs, they are probably not able to buy a prescription drug
policy. Most insurance companies do not sell prescription drug
policies. So they may be able to get it through an HMO, but we know
what the problems are with HMOs. We do not know how much the deductible
is going to be; we do not know how much the copayment is going to be.
We do not know whether all drugs will be covered. A lot of problems and
a lot of inability, I would say ultimately, to get a good insurance
program that covers prescription drugs.
So I would suggest that this Republican proposal and the one that
comes from Governor Bush is not realistic. It is not something that is
going to help most seniors. But even so, basically they have not paid a
lot of attention to it here in the House of Representatives. They
talked about it at one time, but that was it. There has not really been
any movement to get this accomplished. That is unfortunate, because our
seniors are crying out for an answer on the issue of prescription
drugs.
Now, on a second issue, and that is the issue of HMO reform, once
again the Democrats, and if we listened to the last debate, Vice
President Gore was very specific that what we need in order to cure the
abuses in the HMO system is the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Norwood-
Dingell bill that was passed by the House of Representatives, mostly
with Democratic votes but with some Republican support.
I will not get into all the details of the Patients' Bill of Rights,
but basically it changes a lot of things that exist under current law
in terms of the abuses we face with HMOs. Right now, the decision about
what kind of medical care a person gets, whether that person gets a
particular operation, how many days they stay in the hospital, what
kind of equipment they get, these decisions are made by the insurance
company, and many times without the patient's input or without the
doctor's input. That is what leads to abuses.
HMOs deny care. People do not really have a way to redress their
grievances because if they have to appeal the decision of the HMO,
usually it is to the HMO itself, and they, of course, deny it again.
{time} 2045
What the Democrats have been saying with the patients' bill of
rights, with the support of a minority of Republicans but not with the
Republican leadership, is that we have been saying that we want to make
sure that decisions about what kind of care they get, what is medically
necessary, are made by the physician and the patient, not by the
insurance company. That is what the patients' bill of rights says.
And secondly, it says that if the HMO denies them care that they
think they should have or that they need, then they have a legitimate
way of redressing their grievance by going into an outside board that
is independent of the HMO, or, failing that, they have the right to go
to court and bring suit, which is not possible now for most people who
are in HMOs.
Well, if we listen to the third debate, Governor Bush said that he
was in favor of HMO reform. But then when we look at his record in
Texas, on one occasion when something like the patients' bill of rights
came to his desk, he vetoed it. And then on another occasion when it
came to his desk he basically was told, if you veto it again, we will
override your veto, we have the votes in the legislature to override;
and so, he let it become law without his signature, basically
protesting it but indicating that he could not do anything about it
because if he did veto it, it was going to be sustained anyway.
So we do not have much support here. We have a Presidential candidate
on the Republican side that basically opposed HMO reform as Governor.
And then we have a Republican leadership that still reluctantly allowed
the patients' bill of rights to come to the floor of the House and it
passed, but the Senate is holding it up and the Republican leadership
continues to oppose it here in the House of Representatives.
The last major issue, and there are others but I want to get to my
colleagues, the last major issue with regard to health care reform that
faces many Americans is that many Americans, something like 44 million
Americans right now, simply have no health insurance. They are not
covered through their employer. They are not eligible for Medicaid
because they are working and their income is a little too high and they
cannot afford to go out in the private market and buy their own health
insurance.
Well, the Democrats have been saying, let us try to solve that
problem. We solved it to some extent in a significant way with
children, which was the largest of this 44 million who did not have
insurance. We passed the CHIP bill, and we gave money to the States so
they could sign up kids for a health insurance program for the children
of working parents. And that has been successful in probably signing up
about half the children around the country that were previously
uninsured.
But again, when it came to Governor Bush, he said that, although he
was getting the money from the Federal Government, he wanted to keep
the income levels for the kids' care program, for the CHIP program
fairly low. And he had originally proposed, I think, 150 percent of
poverty, and it took the Texas legislature basically to insist that the
eligibility requirements be higher than that. And for a long time,
essentially, he made it difficult for the CHIP program, for the
Children's Health Insurance Program, to be implemented in the State of
Texas in a way that would be helpful to more and more children.
Now, what the Democrats have been saying and what Vice President Gore
has been saying is we want to expand the eligibility for this CHIP
program to even higher incomes, maybe 250 percent of poverty. And at
the same time, the Vice President and the Democrats have been saying we
want to address the problem with the adults who are uninsured, so let
us let the parents of the kids who are in the CHIP program enroll in
the CHIP program as well so that they are insured. It certainly makes a
lot of sense. But again, we do not see the Republicans supporting that
initiative or taking any action here in the House of Representatives to
address that concern.
Lastly, the other large group of people that we know are uninsured
are the near elderly, the people between 55 and 65 that are not
eligible for Medicare but who often lose their job or take early
retirement and find themselves or their spouse without health
insurance.
[[Page 24374]]
President Clinton and Vice President Gore and the Democrats have been
advocating that those near elderly be able to buy into Medicare for
maybe $300 or $400 a month, and again we have seen opposition from the
Republican leadership and the unwillingness to bring this up in
committee or on the floor of the House.
So whether it is the issue of access and covering the uninsured,
whether it is the issue of HMO reform, or whether it is the issue of
prescription drugs, over and over again the Democrats have put forward
proposals supported by the Vice President which have been opposed or
scuttled, if you will, by the Republicans and again not supported by
their Presidential candidate, Governor Bush.
We are only pointing out the facts here tonight. I am joined by a
number of my colleagues who would like to address this issue.
First, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen) who also happens to be a physician.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone) said, the big issues that remain before us as we come close to
the end of the 106th Congress are the same ones that we have not been
able to get the Republican leadership of this body to adequately
address through several Congresses, not just this one, education and
health care.
Last week I was able to join some of my colleagues to call for
passage of our education agenda. But tonight I want to join my
colleague in talking about health care.
A few weeks ago, I joined Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, along
with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and others at a hearing in
the other body to call on their leadership to bring the patients' bill
of rights to the floor for a vote and to pass it. To date nothing has
happened. That is despite the testimony of patients, of a mother who
lost her daughter because she was denied the test and care that she
needed, the testimony of health care professionals who said how their
professional judgment and their values were daily compromised by having
to work under the current managed care system.
The system has to be reformed to allow doctors and other providers to
make decisions in consultation with their patients on what medical
tests and care is indicated in each instance, to have the system better
respond to the needs of patients for access to emergency services and
specialists, and to make those who are making decisions on health care
to be accountable for those decisions.
People all over this country are dissatisfied with managed care. They
want the system revamped. They want a patients' bill of rights. The
Vice President is poised to make that happen and we, their
Representatives, need to respond.
I want to spend the rest of my time on the Medicare give-backs that
are being proposed as a remedy for the cuts that took place in the
Balanced Budget Amendment of 1997. It is important that, in this
measure, the one that is proposed, those who are on the front lines
providing health care to those in need be treated fairly and be given
precedence since they are the ones who have suffered the most along
with the patients who rely on them for service.
In my district, our only private home care agency was forced to close
and our public health agency forced to cut back because of the cuts
that were imposed in BBA 1997. This is a situation that has been
repeated in towns, cities and rural areas around the country. Our
hospitals and nursing homes in the Virgin Islands are lucky to still be
open, although it has been a struggle to continue to provide care.
Others have had to close their doors.
I want to say to the Nation's hospitals, do not accept the Trojan
Horse that is being offered to you. The recommendation as it now stands
is wrong. Do not let us be picked off one by one and pitted against
each other. We can all win if we stand together on this issue.
As a doctor, I know how difficult it is to meet overhead costs and to
keep providing services when the fees keep getting smaller. Our
expenses and our operating overhead are not going down. They are going
up. Our patients need, at the very least, the same level of care, and
they deserve to have their needs met.
I resent the fact that the Republican leadership wants to give HMOs
any part of that give-back. For what? They promise nothing in return.
They have left Medicare patients, our elderly, stranded because they
could not make the desired profit. They are holding out their hands for
more money now, and they are not even being made to increase the
service to the special population.
For too long, HMOs have been allowed to take the care out of ``health
care,'' and we say enough is enough. We need to give the dollars back
to the providers of health care, to the doctors and nursing homes,
hospitals and home health care agencies. The people of this country
deserve the full range of health services, and giving our providers
fair reimbursements and helping them to stay in business makes that
possible. We in the Democratic Caucus say give the money to those who
care, give it to the providers, not to the HMOs.
I must also mention an issue that is important to my district. That
is the increases in Medicaid that the administration is seeking and the
redistribution of the Children's Health Insurance Program funds that
are not used by the States. In my district and the other territories,
we have a cap on our Medicaid dollars; and we receive CHIP funds under
a formula which does not allow us to provide the level or the scope of
health care that our residents need. With our cap, we are unable to
provide Medicaid to people even at the poverty level. So we have a
large gap between those who are covered by Medicaid and the uninsured.
The Journal of the American Medical Association today reported a
study on uninsured adults showing that when they are uninsured they are
just not able to access any care, they go without even preventive
services. And Sanda Adamson Fryhofer, the President of the American
College of Physicians American Society of Internal Medicine, which
funded this study, is quoted as saying, ``Studies such as this one,''
the one on the uninsured adults, ``prove that living without
insurance,'' which many of the people in my district do and have done
for years, ``is a serious health risk that needs to be treated with the
same sense of urgency as not wearing seatbelts or drunken driving.''
In my district, close to one-third of the children are estimated to
be uninsured. Kids count. The Community Foundation of the Virgin
Islands recently released a report that showed that 41 percent of our
children live in poverty, twice the national rate, and that deaths
among Virgin Islands children under 14 are also nearly twice the
national rate.
Health care is a right for all, not a privilege for the few. We have
to get that straight before we adjourn and leave for this election.
This means passing a meaningful patients' bill of rights. It means
adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare. It means making up for
the damage we have done to hospitals, home health agencies, nursing
homes, doctors and other providers with the cuts in 1997. And it means
making CHIP and Medicaid fair and equitable to all Americans.
In closing, I want to take this opportunity because some of my
colleagues will be on the floor later to pay tribute to another of our
colleagues. I want to wish the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Weygand) well and thank him for his service to our class in the
Congress. I want to especially thank him for the interest and help in
the national park and other issues in my district. And although we hate
to see him leave this body, it is good to know that they will be able
to count on his able leadership in the other body. He will make a great
Senator from Rhode Island. We thank him for his service.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page 24375]]
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, we all respect and know the profession of
the gentlewoman as being a physician. And she certainly has outlined
here tonight some issues that I know are something that we are all very
concerned about. Most of them deal with the choices that our
constituents and the profession that she also represents feel is so
important in the health and the welfare of our citizens in the country.
I want to ask the gentlewoman a question because I think it does go
to the issue of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
I am going to talk a little bit about a report that was just released
that was done to look at the prescription drug coverage. And the loss
of prescription drug coverage in Florida has gone from something like
26 percent to 41 percent within just 2 years for our senior population.
In the estimation of the gentlewoman, and particularly as we look at
the buy-back bill that we are talking about on the Medicare, on the
home health care agencies and hospitals and other things, in her
professional career, would the gentlewoman agree that because of the
hardship that people face in buying prescription drugs, and in fact we
know that they are not taking the medicines as they have been
prescribed, they are cutting them in half, they are taking them a
different day, they are giving us the excuses that they want to make
sure their spouse has them instead of them. What does the gentlewoman
believe is not number-wise but just the cost to this country in medical
expenses that we are having to pay for because people are not taking
the life-saving medicines that they need to be taking on a regular
basis?
{time} 2100
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I cannot give you a specific number as you asked,
but I know that it is multiplied severalfold because of the inability
to take the drugs. For example, we know that if someone is able to take
their hypertensive medication or their diabetic medication and maintain
their hypertension or diabetes within the normal range, they can expect
to live a normal life span and avoid the complications which put them
into the hospital and greatly increase the cost of medical services. If
we focus on prevention in health care instead of worrying about the
cutting costs, if we focus on prevention, we will cut the costs of
health care in this country.
Mrs. THURMAN. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. PALLONE. I think that that is a very good point. The point is
that a lot of these preventative measures, particularly including
prescription drugs, although initially there is a cost to the
government and we know a rather large cost over the long term it may
save costs in hospitalization and other kinds of nursing home care and
institutionalization. It is a very good point.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Absolutely.
Mr. PALLONE. Also I wanted to mention, it has to be so difficult as a
physician with these HMOs when a decision is made that you think is not
in the best interests of the patient. I imagine you go through that
many times and this is really sad.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I was fortunate that I was in a fee for service.
But if you listen to the doctors who came to the Senate a few weeks
ago, they talked about the fact that they just in good conscience
sometimes had to just take the risk of going against the HMO's decision
because they just could not deny an examination that they felt was
needed for a patient. The testimony of the mother whose daughter's name
is the same as mine, Donna Marie, who died because she did not have the
appropriate test was a testimony to that. We took an oath. To make some
of the decisions that the HMOs place on us goes against the oath that
we took as physicians.
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank you for joining us this evening and for
all that you have done as part of our health care task force and
drawing attention to this issue as well.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding. I think that this could not be a better discussion, but it is
a distressing discussion. And I believe that the dialogue between my
good friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) and the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) is an important
one as it relates to the human factor.
I would like to yield to a moment to the gentleman from New Jersey
because I was getting ready to recount and take our historical journey
back to how long we have actually been discussing the patients' bill of
rights. I know we are discussing sort of a whole purview; and I have so
many burning issues as relates to health care. And in Texas, right now,
I am facing the catastrophe of HMOs closing up shop; and, of course,
they would argue there is no money. And I would argue my seniors are
left with distress and inability to be served. So we have to find a
solution. Part of that solution was the patients' bill of rights.
As my memory seems to serve me, it looks as if as I came to Congress,
and I came in the 104th Congress which was in 1995, I remember
beginning the debate on the patients' bill of rights. I would simply
like to yield to the gentleman so we all can understand where we are
with the numbers of Members who signed up on the legislation, I think
there are 280 plus, why we have not passed it.
My recollection, the bill was named Norwood-Dingell, that is a
Republican and a Democrat. I remember physicians from both sides of the
aisle coming to the floor pleading for that particular version to be
passed. Might I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey to tell us where
we are and why we are in this predicament at this point.
Mr. PALLONE. Basically as I think you remember, when we tried to
bring up the patients' bill of rights, we were opposed by the
Republican leadership; and we actually were only able to get it up
because almost a majority of the House signed a discharge petition,
including some Republicans. And as it got close to that magic 218 they
decided we better bring it up, otherwise it is going to be discharged
to the floor without the leadership's support.
But even when it passed the House, the Republican leadership made it
clear that they opposed the bill because when we had the conference
with the Senate every one of the conferees they appointed on the
Republican side with one exception voted against the bill. I am one of
the conferees. When we went to the conference, not surprisingly the
majority of the Members there between the Senate and the House were
against the Norwood-Dingell bill.
My colleague from Arkansas knows that that is a fact because he has
also been part of the conference. I think the conference met officially
once and then there were some smaller meetings after that, but the
Republican leadership in the House and clearly the Republican
leadership in the Senate made it quite clear that they were not willing
to support the Norwood-Dingell bill and essentially scuttled the whole
effort. It is nowhere now. The conference has not met in months. I
yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. THURMAN. What you are actually saying to us tonight and
obviously I have been here, too, but sometimes I think we need to make
these points very clear, because I think quite frankly that the
American public is tired of people who have not been trained as
physicians making decisions, that this House, in a fairly good vote, a
bipartisan vote, Democrats and Republicans coming together, a
consensus, believing that the patients' bill of rights that would allow
the choices, the decision making to return to physicians was passed.
And if I remember correctly, there were actually instructions on this
floor even after the conferees had been chosen that we said in again a
bipartisan fashion that we asked for the conferees to at least be
Members who had voted with the majority of the membership of this
House, the people's House. They said to us, put the conferees on that
believe as we do. And that passed.
[[Page 24376]]
Mr. PALLONE. That is correct. I would say even further that it is
quite obvious from the composition of the Senate right now that if the
bill were brought to the floor of the Senate and we just did not have a
conference, just took the House bill and sent it over to the Senate and
brought it up on the floor of the Senate, the votes would be there to
pass it. So it is the Republican leadership in both Houses that is
preventing this from happening even when we certainly had a majority
here and probably even have the majority in the Senate to pass it.
Mrs. THURMAN. So it is those who control the agenda today, the
Republican leadership, that is blocking not only the will of the House
of Representatives but the majority of the people in this country's
ability to have health care delivered by their doctors and not by
untrained people.
Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely. I do not think there is any question that if
there were a vote once again here or a vote in the Senate that this
would pass, would go to the President and be signed into law.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I might add a third component because I
think the third component is most onerous and slightly evil if I might
use that terminology and that is, of course, the special interests,
that has this legislation frozen, literally frozen, and that is
insurance companies.
We have given them very nice names, HMOs, which are health
maintenance organizations, but they are, in fact, insurance companies
that are frightened beyond their expectations of what will happen if
you restore to that really sacred relationship the patient and the
physician assessing their particular status. I would like to just
explore that, because that is why I believe it is so important that we
move the Nation's health agenda along, and, that is, because people are
not being served well by the HMO/insurance dominance.
I just wish to take you back to a very moving moment on the floor of
the House by our colleague from Iowa, a physician from the other side
of the aisle, brought in, I believe what was a quadruple amputee, I
think all of us saw that and there was certainly a lot of debate about
that young boy.
He was one of the most pleasant children that any of us have had a
chance maybe to encounter, but it was not a pleasant experience. And he
was here for what I think was a moment of drama that was necessary, and
I am appreciative of it. Because when we heard the story of this little
boy that in fact his parents after the tragic accident, I think they
were camping, I think that what happened is that he got a rusty nail or
some accident while they were camping and they rushed him to the
hospital, to the nearest hospital emergency room and were told, your
HMO does not cover you here.
The delay which required them to go some 50 miles away caused this
little boy to have enormous reaction, I do not want to misplace the
story, it might have been gangrene, but it resulted in him being a
quadruple amputee, meaning hands and feet.
I think these are the kinds of stories that are not to be taken
lightly nor are they only to suggest that we are creating an atmosphere
of crisis. This is what is happening to Americans day by day, week by
week and month by month and maybe even hour and minute and second. I
believe the longer that we frustrate this system by not pushing forward
the patients' bill of rights, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
for giving the procedural structure as we have now, conference to those
who do not understand is where you are supposed to come together,
people of reasonable minds, and say how can we work this out.
It is well known that your conference was an opportunity for
obstruction and that really what could happen is come to the floor of
the House, and we could have this passed. I want to just move quickly
to that obstruction, the patients' bill of rights, and then this clear
choice on the prescription drug benefit. All of us have been part of
that.
I see the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) on the floor. I come from the State of Texas.
Frankly I can say that we have a record that is not one to be proud of.
But we certainly appreciate the fact that we have a situation where we
can explain the difference between the plan that Al Gore has and the
plan that we have been pushing here in the House as Democrats and what
the Republicans with George Bush at the helm are trying to push on us.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, knowing that the gentlewoman is from Texas, I
would be interested to know what her experience with the Governor has
been in Texas on a patients' bill of rights.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentleman raises a very interesting
question because I have certainly been confused by the debates that
have occurred and the explanation that the Governor has given. I think
it is well known that the Governor did not sign a real patients' bill
of rights. In fact, the one that is now being emulated here in this
Congress which has been cited as a Texas bill really was passed without
his signature. It came to his desk, and we have a procedure in the
State of Texas where if you do not sign it, it becomes law. So in
actuality, there are Members in this body, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner) for one and other Members who are not in this body who are
now still State legislators who were the moving forces behind the
patients bill of rights. But it was never signed by the Governor.
And so even as we argued in committee, in the Committee on the
Judiciary, in the Committee on Commerce about the patients' bill of
rights and we cited the Texas bill, it is a Texas bill but it was never
signed. One of the reasons that it was not signed, and I cannot read
the minds of the leadership at that time of our State, the Governor but
certainly there was some argument about special interests who were
still opposing it because it did give the right of the aggrieved
person, the person who lost a loved one, the right to sue.
I just want to say something about that because you do not hear
anyone raising their voices about that other than those who are
continually denying service, because everyone knows patient and
physician, no one who is dealing with health care and the life or death
of a loved one is eager to rush to the courtroom. What they are eager
to do is rush to the recovery room, because they want their loved one,
they want to be well, they want their child to be well, they are not
interested in playing out health care in the courtroom. And so it
really is a minimal issue.
Mr. PALLONE. If I could ask the gentlewoman to yield a minute, I
remember when we were discussing this at the time the patients' bill of
rights passed, that I do not think there were more than a handful of
cases since the Texas law became law where anybody had gone to court.
Less than five or so at the time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Absolutely. As we have seen, all of the
testimony talks about the loss of my loved one and the fact that I
would have wanted to have gotten the care from the physician as opposed
to a denial of care. That is what we are on the floor to do.
Let me close my remarks by pointing out again about Texas, and I am
glad my good colleague and neighbor from Arkansas pointed to
distinctive differences between what we are debating on the floor of
the House and what the Democratic caucus and a very large number of
Members of the other side of the aisle are fighting against with the
Republican leadership.
{time} 2115
That is, again, pointing not only to the Patients' Bill of Rights,
but this prescription drug benefit. And I just want to highlight, I
have interpreted it this way. We now have to kind of say it is
voluntary, because we hear the other side saying we want to force
seniors into something. The only thing that we want to force seniors
into is happiness, because we want seniors to be able to secure
prescription drugs that they need and they can take the full amount, so
that they are not choosing rent, they are not choosing food, and they
are not choosing utilities over
[[Page 24377]]
their full amount that the physician has prescribed.
What do I have in my offices? Seniors after seniors and letters after
letters saying ``I cannot take the full complement of the prescription;
I do not have the money.'' So what our plan, the many who have worked
on this plan who will speak tonight about their plan and the plan, and
what Al Gore is proposing is a mandatory guaranteed benefit. Let me say
the term ``mandatory.'' It is under Medicare. It is mandatory that
every senior does have a choice, but it is a guaranteed benefit under
Medicare.
That makes a world of difference, because what it says is seniors can
get the same low cost that local hospitals can and will not have to
suffer the consequences of shooting up blood pressures from not taking
their full prescription of blood pressure medicine, or their sugar
going up because of the diabetes, which I hear so often from seniors.
The last point is on BBA 1997. We all tried to do the right thing.
But it is interesting, we have been trying to fix it to ensure that we
take care of our hospitals for a long time. Now, the tragedy is, I wish
that for once we would have a bipartisan response to a problem that is
hurting all of us. In rural communities, hospitals are closing. Urban
communities, hospitals are closing. But yet we have a proposal on the
table that does not answer the question of providing for the ones who
are on the front lines, home health care centers, hospitals, and public
hospitals.
So I hope that we can turn our attention to putting the right kind of
legislation on the floor, because my public hospital system is
watching. And I would hate to have to vote against this legislation
because all of the money goes to HMOs. That is not keeping my public
hospitals' doors open. That is not good health care. That is not
preventive health care. That is not anything, because my hospitals, and
when I say ``my hospitals,'' I am sure others will talk about their
hospitals. But the Harris County Hospital District doors will still be
in trouble if this legislation passes with a large sum of the relief
going to HMOs.
Mr. Speaker, I frankly think we can do better by the American people,
and I think the American people will demand of us that. We have a short
period of time. I hope that we can put the focus of health care back in
the hands of the people and not in special interests.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. She
points out the fact that this is affecting real people in their lives,
and that is what is so crucial about this tonight.
I yield now to the gentleman from Arkansas, who is one of the
conferees on this ill-fated Patients' Bill of Rights conference,
unfortunately.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and
appreciate the leadership he has provided on this matter over the time
that I have been in the House of Representatives. I appreciate our
distinguished colleagues, especially the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs.
Thurman), for the great job that she has done and the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and the distinguished gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen). They have been working on these issues all the time we
have been in the House, and I appreciate them very much.
The American public is outraged that we have not done anything in the
106th Congress on health care. Here we are 25 days into October, should
have already finished the Congress' business and gone home. Yet we are
here today because the Republican leadership has refused to deal even
with the basic appropriations matters. We have not passed a
prescription drug benefit for our seniors. We have not passed a
Patients' Bill of Rights. We have, as the gentlewoman from Texas just
referred to, hospitals and nursing homes closing almost daily now
because of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that needs to be repaired.
Our seniors that do not have medicine cannot wait until the 107th
Congress. What are we expecting them to do? They cannot wait when they
do not have medicine and do not have the money to buy it. Our citizens
that do not have a Patients' Bill of Rights, and they are not getting
the health care they need from their insurance companies, they cannot
wait.
Our nursing homes and hospitals and providers, particularly in rural
America, cannot wait. It is time that we did something. The Republican
leadership in this Congress should do something tomorrow to rectify
this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say it reminds me of the story of two men in
the community where I grew up. One of them was named Dude and the other
one's name was Possum. Now Possum could not see very well and he was
getting on up in years and needed to go to Little Rock to the doctor
about a hundred miles away, and Dude decided he would take him. So they
got in the car and started to Little Rock, and they got to Little Rock
and it was the first stop light that they encountered after traveling
100 miles and Dude came up to the stop light and slammed on his brakes.
He sat there and waited until the light changed and then just floor-
boarded the automobile and roared off to the next stop light. When he
came to it and it was red, he slammed on his brakes again. After doing
that three or four times, Possum said, ``Dude, what in the world are
you doing?'' And he said, ``I don't understand this.'' And Dude said,
``You know, an ignorant so-and-so irritates me. Can't you see I'm
fighting the traffic?''
That is what the Republicans have been doing here for 2 years, is
fighting the traffic. They are not getting anything done. They are
slamming on their brakes, and they are stomping the accelerator. They
are ripping and roaring and tearing around and declaring all of this
great concern about America's health care, and the fact is they have
not done anything and do not intend to.
It has been interesting to listen to Governor Bush talking about
working in a bipartisan way. We are certainly willing to work with him.
He better bring some new Republicans with him if he is going to get any
cooperation. The Democrats are already there ready to pass a
prescription drug benefit.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield,
he is eloquently crafting the whole scenario. But I do want to comment
on the point of the Governor and his constant refrain about working
with Democrats and Republicans in the State of Texas. The gentleman
just hit on the point.
I think it should be made very clear that the last Patients' Bill of
Rights, which is in fact almost a replica of what we have in the House
for which we have bipartisan support, which was under legislative
Democratic leadership in Texas, was a bill he could not bring himself
to sign. And rather than fight it by a veto again, realizing that he
could not get a sustained veto, he let it languish and it went into
law.
So this refrain of working with Democrats and Republicans on health
care is somewhat, I might say, hypocritical; and the gentleman from
Arkansas has hit the nail on the head. I would simply say that a good
thing he might be able to do in this time frame is to call this
leadership here and ask them to move forward on the Patients' Bill of
Rights.
I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman from Texas makes a
very good point. It is time that the Republican leadership in the
Congress realizes what the American people want and do something about
it. It is past time. Our seniors cannot afford to wait another day for
prescription drug coverage, for our hospitals to get the money that
they need, and for a Patients' Bill of Rights to be passed so that we
have the ability for our doctors and patients to make the health care
decisions that they are involved in; so that we can hold the insurance
companies accountable in the event that they do cause some serious
damage or injury to our loved ones.
It is unbelievable to me that one more Congress has already just
about expired and nothing has happened. I continue to be amazed at this
rhetoric that the Republicans put out every day: oh, we are for
Patients' Bill of Rights. We are for prescription drug
[[Page 24378]]
benefits for our senior citizens. We are for that 100 percent. The fact
is they have been in control of this Congress since 1995 and have done
absolutely nothing to move these issues forward.
As the gentleman from New Jersey explained a few minutes ago, we have
done discharge petitions. We have done everything that we have; every
tool that we have available to us has been used by the Democrats to try
to get prescription drug coverage and a Patients' Bill of Rights and to
change the Balanced Budget Act so that our health care providers,
particularly in rural America, can stay in business, and yet nothing
has happened. This is an abomination for this Congress to be this close
to adjournment and still nothing has happened.
I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for
yielding me. I would like to follow up what he has been saying, because
it is not just the Republican leadership here, though they certainly
have not brought to the floor, they have not helped the process of
passing a Patients' Bill of Rights or certainly not fought for our
seniors.
But there is another group out there. The gentleman knows in the
Fourth District in Arkansas, Citizens for Better Medicare is running
television ads all across this country. Citizens for Better Medicare is
a group, but it is not citizens, and they are not for better Medicare.
Citizens for Better Medicare is funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
And it is not the only organization that is funded by the
pharmaceutical industry.
What they are doing is trying to go out and make heroes of those who
have been fighting against a prescription drug benefit for seniors and
to attack those who have been supporting a Medicare prescription drug
benefit for seniors. The world is turned on its head and that little
tag line under the TV ads which says ``Citizens for Better Medicare''
means that they are the pharmaceutical industry and they are going to
do everything they can to stop seniors from getting a discount, stop
seniors from getting a prescription drug benefit.
The Republican National Committee is doing the same thing, trying to
confuse the American people. There is an ad being run by the RNC, and
it says that the Gore plan would force people into a big government
HMO. Not true. There is no such animal as a big government HMO. The
HMOs are the folks, the private sector, they are the folks who are
allowed by the Balanced Budget Act to come into Medicare and offer
managed care to Medicare beneficiaries around the country.
My parents are two of the 1,700 people in Maine who are the last
people to be covered by managed care under Medicare. And why? Because
the managed care company could not make enough money in Maine, so they
have pulled out. I will say one thing about Medicare. Medicare does not
leave a State just because it is not making money. And the truth is if
we are going to provide effective, reliable, voluntary prescription
drug coverage for our seniors, it will only be through Medicare.
Just contrast George W. Bush's plan. This is a plan which he calls
``Immediate Helping Hand.'' It is not immediate, and it is not much
help, because here is how it works. For the first 4 years, there is $48
billion that will go to 50 different States to run 50 different
programs to help only those who are low income. What is low income?
Those who are taking in $14,500 a year or less. A widow earning $15,000
a year on Medicare, they wait. They wait for 4 years. And after 4
years, what they get to do under the Bush plan is call up an HMO who is
operating in their State and hope that maybe, just maybe they will be
providing a prescription drug plan.
Now, the chances are slim that they will be, because one thing the
health insurance industry has made clear is that they will not provide
stand-alone prescription drug coverage, which is at the heart of the
Republican effort in the House, the Republican effort in the Senate,
and the George W. Bush plan. That is how the Republicans say they are
going to provide for our seniors, through HMOs that are saying
themselves that they do not want any part of this business.
{time} 2130
It is a scandal.
Mrs. THURMAN. I would just ask a question, because we talk about in
these numbers of poverty or somebody under $14,000, that is not after
expenditures. That is what they get at the beginning of the year, or
what their allocation would be, would be $14,500. So if you were
somebody who was 70 years old and if we look at the average of what a
senior takes in medicine, life-sustaining medicines, then they could
pay anywhere between $4,000 to $5,000 a year, not on anything else, but
just on medicines, dropping now their income to $9,000, $9,000 which
they have to live on, after the medicine which allows them to live.
Mr. ALLEN. The point is a very good one. I was at an assisted living
facility just 2 weeks ago and one of the women there said, you know, I
am spending $700 a month for my prescription medication, and, she said,
I hope you do something soon. It is very clear, she could not continue
spending $700 a month very long.
Yet, under the Bush proposal, it is 4 years, you wait 4 years, if you
are taking in more than $14,500 a year, and you wait, and then after 4
years you call up your HMO and hope that maybe they are offering a plan
that today they say they will not offer under any circumstances.
There is another issue here that we have not talked about, that I
find is very important in Maine, and I will bet it is true in Arkansas
and Florida, and New Jersey as well. When I talk to small businessmen
and women in Maine, they say to me now, we cannot afford the kind of
health insurance that we used to buy. And what are they buying, if they
are buying anything at all? They are buying catastrophic coverage only.
They are basically getting health insurance, and they will wind up
paying for the first $5,000 of their health care.
That is not health insurance as we know it. Under that system, there
is no incentive, financial incentive, to do preventive care. That is
basically the individual, small businessman and woman, carrying the
burden of their own health care, and getting insured only for expenses
over $5,000.
I just was noticing that this is an area where Al Gore's plan really
makes a difference, because he creates a 25 percent tax credit for
small businesses who are purchasing health insurance for workers,
number one; number two, he allows those who are 55 to 65 years old to
buy into Medicare; and, three, he provides access to coverage for all
children by expanding the children's health insurance program to 250
percent of poverty and allowing a buy-in to the CHIP program for
families with incomes above that level.
So, by focusing on small businesses, by focusing on children and by
focusing on those people between 55 and 65, you are attempting to get
to the place where we can expand coverage. It will happen, if it
happens, because Democrats are willing to stand up and fight the HMO
industry and fight the prescription drug industry, because these
industries cannot do it, and in some cases will not do it.
Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate my colleague's comments. Let me just say,
we have about 4 or 5 minutes left. I certainly will yield to any of my
colleagues. The gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. BERRY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey again. One of the
things that I wonder about is our Republican leadership here, as I have
said, they have refused to pass a patients' bill of rights and a
prescription drug benefit for our seniors, and I wonder how they are
going to face these seniors and say, well, wait 4 more years. How are
they going to face these seniors that are thrown into terrible
situations and say, well, we did not do it, but we are going to. We are
with you. We are going to do it some day. How are they going to face a
little boy that has lost his limbs?
Mr. PALLONE. What I find is a lot of times they will try to address
maybe the individual's problem who comes to
[[Page 24379]]
their office and see what they can do to help, but the bottom line is
that everyone is suffering from this. Everybody in an HMO has the
potential, no matter how wealthy they are or what their situation in
life is, where the insurance company comes along and says to them that
you cannot have a particular procedure. I do not care what your
situation is you find yourself in. I noticed people that are the head
of the company, the CEO of the company, that has had that situation. So
this is something that affects everybody. This is not just something
that applies to a few people.
I think they just pretend like they are doing something about it and
hope that people forget.
Mrs. THURMAN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We have been doing
a lot of surveys and different studies across the country, and then in
particular within our districts, by the governmental operations staff
to look at the different costs of what it costs in the United States
for medicine, what it costs in Canada and what it costs in Mexico.
Just recently we have also looked at another study which has been
done through the State of Florida, and looked at the prescription drug
coverage for Florida seniors. I found it very interesting, which just
tells me this issue is getting more difficult because we are getting
more seniors who are losing their coverage, and probably a lot because
of the pullouts of our HMO-managed care, managed-choice program.
The survey collected during 1999 showed that 41 percent of the
Medicare beneficiaries surveyed in Florida reported now that they had
no prescription drug coverage, and in 1998 it was 29 percent of
surveyed Florida seniors that reported that they did not have. So just
1 year later, we have already seen an increase to 41 percent. That is
almost 50 percent of the population of seniors in the State of Florida.
It would seem to me, and what I am most saddened about is, that we
leave the 106th Congress after debating, after recognizing the problem,
still with no prescription drug benefit, no relief in sight, and for
why not, I do not have the answer, and I do not know what to tell them
at home. It is because they would not have accepted the bill that was
passed on this House. They understand that to depend on the very same
people who have left them out with managed care and insurance
companies, it is unacceptable.
____________________
ISSUES AFFECTING AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. McINNIS. I have come this evening, colleagues, first of all I
appreciate the opportunity to visit with you. Of course, we are trying
to wrap up the session. I have got several comments that I want to make
this evening in regards to a great bill that passed today on the Sand
Dunes of Colorado, making it a new national park. I want to comment a
little about the Colorado canyons. I want to talk a little about the
death tax and the marriage penalty. I have a full agenda.
But I have to tell you before I start this, I cannot allow this last
hour to go unrebutted. Colleagues, as you know, there were no
Republicans involved in the last hour of discussion. It was all
Democrats. And the four Democrats, whom I respect as individuals, but
professionally, let us call it what it is. All four of these are
supporting Al Gore for the presidency, and there is nobody to stand up
for George W. Bush.
The best way to criticize George W. Bush is to go out and frighten
the senior citizens, throw out these scare tactics. I could not believe
what I heard in the last few minutes; scare the senior citizens, tell
them how terrible it is, George W. Bush, how terrible the Republican
leadership is in the House of Representatives; tell them how nothing is
ever going to get done.
That is not how we accomplish things around here. I have urged my
colleagues on the Democratic side over there, join with us.
We had a panel, and my colleague knows this, we had a panel, a non-
partisan panel, put together to save Medicare; nonpartisan, meaning we
had Republicans and Democrats, and we had Republicans and Democrats who
worked together. You know what? After a long, arduous journey, with
lots of technical roadblocks to overcome, they came up with a good
solid recommendation. And it was not the Republican leadership that
rejected it in the House. The Senate leadership did not reject this.
Who rejected it was the President. The President rejected the
nonpartisan solution.
So where are we with this? When we talk about health care, when we
have a nonpartisan coalition, Democrats and Republicans, who have come
together for a solution, and that solution is rejected at the last
minute by the administration, what do we have to do? We have to start
at square one, and that is what is happening.
We have got to come up with a solution. We are not going to come up
with a solution, and I say with due respect to my Democratic colleagues
who spoke in the last hour, we are not going to accomplish it with
scare tactics. Really, you may get some political advantage here in the
next 2 weeks, but the fact is, in the long run, it does not serve
anything to scare these people.
My parents are seniors out there too, and I know most of my
colleagues out here have colleagues who are seniors. We do not want to
scare them. Let us figure out a solution for them.
My rebuttal, these are my remarks, this is my rebuttal page. I want
to go over a couple of these things they talked about.
You know, they talked about a solution. I am not sure what solution
they are talking about, but it seems to me that the solution that they
talk about, which is not the solution that the bipartisan panel came up
with, the solution they talked about is to increase the size of the
government responsibility in your health care. One-size-fits-all. One-
size-fits-all.
In other words, you, citizen A, and you, citizen B, go to the same
doctor, whether you like it or not, and here is how much you are going
to get, regardless of what you think your needs are.
By the way, the government, I heard one of my colleagues, with due
respect, one of my Democratic colleagues who spoke in the last hour, he
said there is no such animal as a government-run health care HMO.
You know what? The largest health care system in the Nation is run by
the United States Government. Medicare. Medicaid. Look at the Veterans
system. And the worst run system in the United States is run by the
United States Government, Medicare and Medicaid. And you are willing to
stand up and say, increase the government's involvement in everybody's
health care, have the government really run the program to provide
health care for the people of America?
That is exactly what Hillary Clinton attempted to do. That is exactly
what she attempted to do 8 years ago. But now what you are trying to do
is piecemeal.
Look, be up front with the people that we represent. Tell them that
on a piecemeal basis we are going to try and put a cloud on top of you
called ``socialized health care.'' It means a lot bigger government. It
means a system just like Medicare, that is run just as poorly as
Medicare.
To my Democratic colleagues who like throwing scare tactics out, go
talk to your local medical provider. Ask him what it is like to do
business with Medicare. Just ask him. Ask him what it is like to do
business with Medicaid. Go out there. I know this is true in the rural
parts of the country, because I represent a rural part. Go out and ask
rural doctors and rural hospitals, hey, is it a good deal doing
business with the government? How efficient is the government Medicare
reimbursement system?
Ask them about it. Ask them how efficient the Medicare coding system
is in our health care system that the government runs. And the
response? You know what the response is going to be. It is terrible.
I have got doctors in my own district ready to stop taking Medicare
patients.
[[Page 24380]]
They are ready to stop taking them because it is such a hassle to deal
with the government-run health care program.
Now, it is fundamentally unfair for anybody to stand up here and say
that any colleague, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, that any
colleague does not care about the health care of our seniors. That is
nothing but an abused and overused scare tactic.
I am a Republican, obviously. I do not know one Democrat, I do not
know one Democrat, even the Democrats that I have the most vigorous
differences with, I do not know one Democrat who is opposed to some
kind of health care, you know, wants to provide health care, wants to
help our seniors or help all of our citizens. On the other hand, I do
not know one Republican that is against helping our seniors, that is
against trying to improve our health care system for all citizens.
So, for some of my colleagues to stand up here and say the Republican
leadership is against the senior citizens, George W. Bush's plan is
against them, come on, be fair about this.
Look, let us have a fair dispute. Let us have a fair debate on this
floor. We can begin the debate by acknowledging that there are certain
facts upon which we all agree. Everybody in these Chambers, everyone in
these Chambers agrees that our health care system constantly needs to
be revised.
{time} 2145
We have to look for ways to improve prenatal care. We have to look
for ways to make sure every woman gets a mammogram. We have to make
sure our seniors have the kind of care so that they can afford
prescription services. We all agree with that.
Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a Congressman or Congresswoman in my
career, never seen one, that stood up and said that they are against
mammograms and we should not offer them. I have never seen a
Congressman or Congresswoman in my career that stood up and said that
they are against senior citizens and that they want them to have high
prescription care services. I have never seen a Congressman or
Congresswoman, Republican or Democrat, in any of these cases that says
that they are against better health care for the citizens of the United
States.
So to stand up here and have the audacity to say, well, the
Republican leadership does not want health care for seniors, and George
W. Bush does not care about seniors and there is no big government
thing. Come on. That is not a fair shot. That is not a fair debate.
Look, we can take shots. We can take the shots, but my colleagues
have other people listening to them. They have seniors listening to
them and they can be scared. These people can be scared. That is
exactly the same type of tactics we are seeing being used on Social
Security. George W. Bush comes up and says we cannot exist with the
current status quo. Oh sure, my generation can make it. The generation
ahead of me can make it on the current status quo with Social Security.
But what about the young people of this country, who, by the way, their
contributions are funding our generation?
So we get these scare tactics thrown in. How are we ever going to
have a government that can really come up with good solutions if we are
going to have these scare tactics over and over again?
It was amazing to me that in this last hour, unrebutted, that my four
colleagues from the Democratic sides, unrebutted, time after time after
time, threw out scare tactics about the Republican Party. They never
said one decent thing, not one decent thing about the Republicans.
Never. They implied, no, they made it very clear. They did not imply,
they made it very clear that Republicans do not want prescription
services; they do not want to help the senior citizens; they do not
want this; they do not want that; they help fund these TV
advertisements, as if the Democratic party is never doing anything like
that at exactly the same point in time.
Come on, we need a solution here, and to do it we have to work across
the aisle. To do it we have to commit to each other, Republican to
Democrat, Democrat to Republican that we will not begin the process
with scare tactics. Darn right we can scare the senior citizens. And
what my colleagues are trying to do is scare them to the ballot box
instead of helping them to a solution. They are trying to scare them to
the ballot box instead of helping them to a solution. That is wrong.
Those seniors out there, every citizen in America, those young people
out there, those people without insurance, those people who have to pay
$700 a month for prescription services, they are not looking to be
scared to the polling booth. They are not looking to be scared into
their vote. They are asking us, they are begging us to help them with a
solution. After listening to this last hour of unrebutted statements
and scare tactics, I want to say, look, calm down, come back and go to
work with us, just like we did with the bipartisan commission.
Take a look at the Republicans and take a look at the Democrats that
were on that bipartisan commission. This was not loaded with Republican
leadership. This was not loaded with Democratic leadership. Neither
party had a ringer in there. We had some very dedicated people who
wanted to come up with a solution, who thought the best way to approach
it was a committee with both parties involved in it, with people who
were respected and knowledgeable on the subject. And that is exactly
what occurred. Unfortunately, it was rejected at the last moment by
President Clinton.
We did not use scare tactics in there. We came up with a solution.
And that is the way this should be done. Come back, come to work with
us. That is what we are asking our colleagues to do.
Now, let me move on for a few minutes. I want to talk about a good
bipartisan effort that we had today, and it shows that bipartisanship
can work. It shows that when we put aside the vigor of our party right
before the election, we can work on something and we can come together
and do something pretty darned fruitful. And that is what we did today.
We created a new national park in this country. This national park is a
diamond in the rough. It is a national park which will exist for
thousands of generations to come. It is a national park that 200 years
or 300 years from now people will look back upon our generation, just
like we look back on the generation that created Yellowstone and
Yosemite and places like that, and say that somebody was really
thoughtful about this, somebody was smart enough to put this into a
park and save it for future generations.
Today, on a strong bipartisan vote, we created a new national park,
America's newest national park, and it is located in the State of
Colorado. I would like to spend a little time tonight first of all
thanking my colleagues for their bipartisan support. There was
opposition to this, and I will go through some of the points that the
opposition made, but first of all I want to give my colleagues some
dynamics of where this park is located.
First, a little about the 3rd Congressional District of the State of
Colorado. The 3rd Congressional District is here outlined in the blue,
where my pointer is. To give my colleagues an idea, this is Colorado,
that is Denver, Colorado, that is Colorado Springs, Colorado, and down
here is Pueblo. This is a highway called I-25, which goes from Wyoming,
up here, down to New Mexico.
The 3rd Congressional District is a very interesting district in our
country. First of all, almost all of my colleagues vacation in this
district. We have the world premier ski resorts in this district. This
district is the highest district in the Nation in elevation. I like to
joke about the 3rd Congressional District, and in good humor say that
once you go out of the district of the 3rd, it is downhill from there.
It is because we live in the highest place in the Nation. Our ski
resorts, Aspen, Telluride, Beaver Creek, Steamboat, Durango, Grand
Junction, Breckenridge, and I could just go on and on with these
premier ski resorts, the Alpines, the Rocky Mountains, the 14,000-foot
peaks, the 56 mountains in Colorado, 54 of them in the 3rd
Congressional District, over 14,000 feet.
[[Page 24381]]
It is a spectacular area of the country. It is also an area which has
huge amounts of Federal land ownership. Take a look, for example, at
our borders, then go east of our borders to the Atlantic Ocean. There
is very little Federal land ownership. But go from our border in
Colorado and come throughout this district and go on to the Pacific
Ocean and there are tremendous amounts of Federal land ownership. So
for those of us in the West, geographically, there is a dramatic
difference in the West versus the East. One, in rainfall. It does not
rain in the West like it does in the East. And number two, the location
of Federal lands. Most, by far the majority, the greatest majority of
Federal lands are located in the West. They are not located in the
East.
So when we talk about Federal lands and what happens with Federal
lands, there is very little pain felt in the East. The pain is all felt
in the West. That is why we have heard people say ``the war on the
West.'' A lot of times we in the West are concerned about people in the
East dictating to us our life-style, which does not apply to them in
the East because they do not have the Federal lands. So we have very
fragile feelings because we are very dependent on a concept called
multiple use. These lands of the Federal Government were created and
originated with the idea of lands of many uses, many uses:
environmental uses, park uses, transportation uses.
For example, in my district almost every power line, every road,
every cable TV, all our water, many of our rivers, they all have to
come across on Federal land; or the water is stored on Federal land or
it originates on Federal land. The key to our life-style, just the
survival of our life-style out there are these Federal lands. We take a
lot of pride in them, and I think that was demonstrated today with the
creation of this national park.
Now, the national park that I am going to talk about involves the
Sand Dunes. We see here an arrow pointing where the Sand Dunes are.
That is the Sand Dunes, the national park we have created. It is a big
chunk. This district, for example, the 3rd Congressional District,
geographically is larger than the State of Florida. It is larger than
the State of Florida, just this congressional district that I am
privileged to represent. Down here, tucked away, is something that is
absolutely amazing. It is a unique situation of one. Nowhere else in
the world do we find what I am about to show my colleagues, and that is
what we today put into a national park.
Let me point it out. We call them the Great Sand Dunes. We call them
the Great Sand Dunes. Take a look at this. Maybe my colleagues would
like to look at this picture here and say, well, they are sand dunes.
Amazing, but somebody must have painted in all these Alpine rocky peaks
behind it, these 14,000-foot peaks. Somebody must have painted that in,
because nowhere in the world would there be massive sand dunes tucked
in between 14,000-foot Alpine peaks. Well, there is somewhere in the
world. It is located right here in the Sand Dunes at Alamosa, Colorado.
There are a lot of dynamics to these sand dunes that the average
person, in fact some of our opponents to this called it nothing. They
said this was nothing but a pile of sand. Fortunately, 366 of my
colleagues today were able to have a vision beyond the so-called pile
of sand. They had the ability to realize the diamond we held in our
hands was a lot more precious than the opponents realized it was. We
had the vision to look into the future and say, my gosh, look at the
ecosystem, look at the ecological system, the biological system, the
environmental, the water resources, the wildlife resources. Look what
is contained within this unique setting found nowhere else in the
world.
These mountains are not painted in. That is the exact setting. We see
these sand dunes. Take a look at the sand dunes in one month. By the
way, a human being would be about, well, we could not even see it. It
would be at the end of a pinpoint. Probably not even that. A little
teeny, teeny dot on these sand dunes, to give an idea of how massive
these sand dunes are. If we took a big semi-truck, it would look about
like this little thing out here right here.
If we looked at these sand dunes a month from today, a month from
today, they would be different. Someone might say, wait a minute, it
does not look quite the way it looked a month ago, and it is not. These
sand dunes are constantly changing. Nowhere else in the world do we
have a stream, a mountain stream that runs in waves. It runs in waves
and that is how it carries the sand. The stream dries up just about the
same day every year, within the same period of time every year. The
stream water all of a sudden disappears, and then what happens is the
winds start to come in, and the winds at first are slow but they are
dry.
As my colleagues know, in the West it is a dry climate. We are not a
humid area. It is a dry arid area. The winds come in slow at first.
They dry the sand without blowing it. They dry the sand and prepare the
sand to be moved from down here in the streambeds that come off these
high Rocky Mountains as a result of the snow. It comes down these
streambeds, and at the right time the sand is dried, and then the winds
start to pick up more velocity. Then pretty soon the winds are heavier
winds, and that is what begins to carry the sands. Then all of a sudden
we see formations on these sand dunes, like you have never seen in your
life.
We could observe it on a daily basis if we had the kind of technical
binoculars, or whatever type of thing would measure that. But on a
monthly basis with the human eye we can begin to see those changes, and
it is all a matter of sequence. It is all a matter of sequence. And the
people of the San Luis Valley for generations have known how special
this is. They know how unique it is, and they have come to the
government of the United States and they have said help us preserve it
as a national park. This is so beautiful, it is so basic to the
heritage of our families, we want it to be basic to the heritage of all
future generations. We want all future generations to enjoy what
families like the Salazars enjoy down there in the San Luis Valley, or
like the Kriers, or the Santis, or people like that down in that
valley, the Entzes and families like that.
They have come to us, and today we have responded on a bipartisan
basis. Both Republicans and Democrats got together to give 366 votes in
favor of this. There were only 34 people in this Chamber who voted no
against naming this a national park. Only 34. I can tell my colleagues
that they put up a heck of a fight. We met opposition to name this as a
national park from the first day we proposed it. But the facts overcame
the opposition.
I have to say there was a lot of support to name this a national
park. It did not start with my colleague Senator Allard in the Senate,
who did a fine job carrying this and passed it out of the United States
Senate without one ``no'' vote. It passed out of the U.S. Senate with
no ``no'' votes. Unanimous. It did not start with myself, who decided
to carry the bill in the House, and 9 years ago stood on one of those
mounds with a gentleman named Bob Zimmerman and his family, and he said
to me this should be a national park. Bob Zimmerman told me this should
be preserved for all future generations; that we have to preserve the
system that we have.
{time} 2200
It did not all start right there. It started from the generations and
generations of families. What happened in the last year, in fact on of
these sand dunes stood Senator Wayne Allard; Senator Ben Campbell; Ken
Salizar, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado; myself; Bruce
Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior. And during that little
conversation we had on one of those sand dunes, of which we were just a
tiny spec in this vast wonderful world of sand, we decided that we
should respond to the community's wishes.
And we began to respond. First of all, the State legislature in
Colorado, the State House of Representatives, passed
[[Page 24382]]
overwhelmingly supporting this designation as a national park. Then the
State Senate did the same thing on their resolution, overwhelmingly.
I can tell my colleagues, Gigi Dennis, a good friend of mine, she led
the fight over there on the Senate side. And I can tell my colleagues
that Lola Spradly on the House, she led over there. Russell George,
Speaker of the House. I can name name after name. Matt Smith. A lot of
different people got together in the State House and out of the House
and the Senate they sent a message to the Government of Washington,
D.C., make this a national park. We support your efforts. Help those
communities preserve this for future generations.
But it did not stop there. The Governor of the State of Colorado,
Bill Owens, a well-respected, very powerful, powerful in a positive
sense, the Governor of the State of Colorado and his wife, the First
Lady of the State of Colorado, they gave this their strong endorsement.
The Attorney General Ken Salizar, and Ken Salizar has generations of
family down there, Ken Salizar went to bat. We had the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall). We had the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms.
DeGette). We had a number of different people who have come together as
a team to create the new national park in Colorado.
I hope all of you, just as you have experienced the ski areas in the
Third Congressional District, most of you have skied in either Aspen or
Vale or Telluride or Purgatory or Powder Horn or Steamboat or
Breckenridge or any of these different areas, come enjoy this. Many of
you in this room have enjoyed the Rocky Mountain National Park.
Colorado will now offer to the people of the United States, to the
people of the world, the State of Colorado will soon have four national
parks in that pristine country that I talk to you about all within a
2\1/2\ hour drive or 3 hour drive. It is exciting. It is spectacular. I
invite my colleagues to come down and see it.
Let me talk just a little more about what else is contained here. We
know that within this range there is an underground aquifer. We do not
have the technical expertise to understand all of the fingers of that
aquifer. In other words, we have a large pool of water underneath the
ground, and we know it contains a huge quantity of water and we know
that that water is fundamental, it is basic to the entire system that
operates here. We know that that water is fundamental to the farmers
and to the ranchers and to the communities and to the crops that they
grow.
But we also know one other thing. We know that if that water is
sucked out of this aquifer underneath this, there is not a human being
alive that can describe the consequences. Oh, we know they will be
negative. We know that taking the water from underneath this and moving
this out of a valley to help the growth of another region to move it
out of this region and move it to another, we know that the result
would be, at a minimum, like the Owens Valley in California where they
dried up an entire region for the benefit of the growth of another
region. But what we do not know are totally the consequences of
draining that aquifer because we technically do not have the expertise
today to figure out where all that water goes.
And water is a sustainable resource. It is the only renewable
resource known to man. It is the only resource that can be used and
reused and reused and reused. It does not disappear. It recreates
itself. And with water, one person's waste or excess water is another
person's water. And so we have to be very careful about those water
resources.
We had a lot of people involved in water, a lot of water experts:
Dave Robins; Ray Kogovsek, former Congressman; Kristine, who works with
Ray; the Northern Water Conservancy District; Colorado River District.
We had a number of different water experts that say this is a good
national park, this should be named a national park. And that water, if
ever they could get to the water, you need to leave that water in the
valley or you stand the chance of collapsing something that is unique,
as I said, known nowhere else in the world.
This is exciting. It is kind of fun. You can get up there in the
summertime actually and you are able to literally ski down there
without skis on your feet. The wildlife is unbelievable.
What we are hoping to do with this, by the way, and some of the
opponents, as I said earlier, some of the opposition to this bill today
said, well, this is nothing but a pile of sand. And I am quoting them.
``This is nothing but a pile of sand.'' Let me tell you, on this pile
of sand, 34 people bought the argument that this is nothing but a pile
of sand. But 366 of you realized, and it is like you had telescopic
eyes, you realized that this is not just a pile of sand, that these
mountains, these 14,000 peaks, these sand dunes represent a remarkable
geographical finding. It is like hitting pay dirt. And it is something
that ought to be preserved. And 366 of you today on both sides of the
aisle said this should be a national park, this should be honored by
all Americans for all future generations for its uniqueness.
What we know about the park today, and I could go through a lot about
what we do know, but what we do know about the park today is a fraction
of what we will know about the park in just 10 years. It is a minute
fraction of what we will know about the park in 20 years. And there is
no comparison of what we know today as compared to what we will know
about that park in 30 years.
And every year the knowledge we get about this park will only further
justify, will only further justify the fact that we had enough gumption
to stand up here despite the opposition and with the assistance of the
U.S. Senate and with the assistance of the State House of
Representatives, the State Senate, the Governor, and the Attorney
General, we had the gumption to stand up and preserve it for future
generations.
Now, I want my colleagues to know that I am a strong advocate of
private property. There are no takings as a result of this national
park. There are no in-holdings in this national park that are not aware
of this. In fact, the major in-holdings are held by the Nature
Conservancy District.
We have elk herds. We have elk. We have falcons. We have eagles. You
name it. We have a lot of wildlife in this area. We have a ranch called
the Baca Ranch. The controlling owners of that ranch want to see this
national park, and they want the Baca Ranch to be a part of it.
Right now the Baca Ranch is inaccessible to the ordinary person,
inaccessible because it is private property. These owners would like to
see it a part of the park so that people regardless of their economic
standing, regardless of where they come from, whether it is the United
States or Mexico or Canada or South America, regardless, they are going
to be able to go onto the Baca Ranch and enjoy the full diversity of
the sand dunes.
Take a look at just the watershed resources that we have on the great
sand dunes. I will just hold this up temporarily long enough to read
the paragraph.
``The dunes watershed consists of two unique mountain streams
originating in the pristine Alpine tundra. These waterways flow through
ancient forests of spruce and fir. Slipping quietly past culturally
scarred ponderosa pine and colorful aspen groves, they cut along the
base of the tallest sand dunes in North America. They flow through the
vast grasslands. And they end in a closed desert basin, all within a
span of a few miles. This area, combined with the tall dunes and the
integral sand deposits, encompass an entire system containing abundant
diversity and special scenery. These dramatic contrasts, snow-capped
mountain peaks and green forests above towering dunes, constitute a
unique American landscape with scenery and diversity comparable to
other national parks in our country and stand out as one of the best in
the entire world.''
That is what it is about. I want to congratulate the 365 Members, or
365 Members because obviously I voted for it, 365 of my colleagues that
were able to see beyond this so-called pile of
[[Page 24383]]
sand, that their vision allowed them foresight into the future and gave
them vision into the future about future generations.
We were just talking about health care. We talked about Social
Security. I am going to talk for a few minutes here shortly about
taxes. The fact is we need as leaders people who have the vision to
look into the future.
I think the greatest accomplishment I can have as a United States
Congressman and I think the greatest accomplishment that my colleagues
can have as United States Congressmen is that years down the road
somebody will look back and say, you know, we are glad that the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) or we are glad that so-and-so or
we are glad that this person had the vision to see just how important
it was that the Ray Blunts, that the different parties involved here
had that kind of vision. Because it is so important, because it is so
important in our leadership role that is we provide something for the
future.
And in the meantime, while we have provided it for the future, all of
us get to enjoy it. All of us can go out there. We get to run in the
sand. We can watch the wildlife. We can hunt. We can fish. We can
travel around and see exactly what it is. And we do it without taking.
There is no taking it. It has to be willing seller. There are no in-
holdings that are getting taken advantage of. That is the beauty of
this thing, and that is why 366 people stood up today despite intense
opposition, which by the way only resulted in 34 votes, but despite
intense opposition on a ratio greater than ten to one, the people of
these Chambers stood up today and said, future America, all of the
world deserves to have this as a national park.
I can tell my colleagues I stand up here with a great deal of pride
and honor, first of all to be a congressman from the State of Colorado,
and, second of all, to represent the Third Congressional District of
Colorado, and I stand up here with a great deal of honor to be the
Congressman of the district that has America's newest national park,
the Great Sand Dunes. And we are going to change it, no longer a
national monument, the Great Sand Dunes National Park.
In conclusion on the park, first of all, many of my colleagues have
been to Colorado to the Third Congressional District. They have skied
it. They have hiked our 14,000-foot peaks. You have rafted our rivers.
As you know, we are famous for fly fishing, mountain biking, you name
it, horseback riding, off-road vehicles on designated trails. We have
got lots of things to draw you to this district. Now we have one more
thing.
For those of you, I want you to know that the communities of Alamosa,
of Mount Vista, San Luis, Conejas, all of these different areas down
there, the valley will welcome you with open hands. And study the
history and the historical basis of the people and how they have lived
on these lands all of these years. And you are going to walk away from
this, you will walk away from these great sand dunes, you will walk
away from there very, very inspired, not just by geographically and
biologically and environmentally that you have seen, you are also going
to walk away from there inspired to know that every United States
Senator serving today by unanimous vote supported this and 366 Members
of your Congress stood up and voted just today to create this new
national park. I am proud of all of you for having done that.
Let me move now to an entirely different subject very briefly. I
should point out here the Colorado canyons. I pointed this out today.
My posters are a little worn, colleagues. You will have to excuse that.
But last night it was signed by the President. This is the State of
Utah. This again is a big chunk of the western portion of my district.
This is the Colorado River.
Colorado is very unique when it comes to water. I thought I would
spend a couple minutes and talk about water. Colorado is the only State
in the Union where all our free-flowing water goes out of the State. We
have no free-flowing water that comes into the State of Colorado for
our use. And in Colorado, within the boundaries of Colorado, in our
district, the Third Congressional District, again it is outlined by
this blue line, within this district right here, 80 percent of the
water in Colorado comes from that district. Eighty percent of the
population of Colorado resides outside that district.
So you can see that because of the tremendous water resources that
are in my congressional district, we have lots of trees, lots of
understandings, and we have lots of discussions that are ongoing as to
the best utilization of that water.
{time} 2215
One of those discussions that came again just like the Great Sand
Dunes National Park, that started at a community level, was the
Colorado Canyons. That bill was signed by the President last night. It
was supported again on the bipartisan basis. And it protected the water
rights of the Colorado River for Colorado people. Although I can tell
you the water in the Colorado River, it is called the mother of rivers,
it provides drinking water for 23 million people, including the country
of Mexico. It is a huge water resource. We know how to protect it. But
we want to protect our rights, too. This bill protected Colorado water
rights for Colorado people. This bill created a national conservation
area. It created a wilderness area up on the top. We got in our
community everyone from our county commissioners to our city council to
our environmental organizations to our ranchers, to just community
citizens, to people who cared, we put all of this together. I as a
facilitator and others as a facilitator were able to come up with this
compromise and we call this the Colorado Canyons bill. I am very proud
of that. Again, another accomplishment by the people of Colorado to
protect the resources of Colorado for future generations, while at the
same time allowing current generations to enjoy the utilization of the
resources that we have in the fine State of Colorado.
Let us shift gears completely and let us talk for a minute about
taxes. I think it is very important. Because I have heard a lot of
political rhetoric lately about tax cuts. There are some tax cuts that
have taken place and there are a couple of tax cuts that ought to take
place that I think when you sit down with the average American, one,
they appreciate the fact that the taxes were cut or, two, they think
these taxes should be eliminated. I can start out with the death tax.
Do you think that our forefathers when they drafted the Constitution
had in their wildest imagination that this government that they were
creating, this new concept of democracy that they were putting
together, would see death as a taxable event? That your death would
result in a money-making revenue source for the government that they
were creating? Can you imagine our forefathers thinking that as a
revenue-raising, income-raising event for the Federal Government there
should be a tax on your marriage? That when you get married that we
should have a marriage tax?
Both of those taxes, the death tax and the marriage tax, should be
eliminated. How can you argue with that? Regardless of the impact on
the budget. Look at the basic concept, the fundamental question. Should
we tax the event of death? Is death a taxable event? By the way, when
we tax it, are we not a nation that wants to encourage family farms and
ranches and small businesses to go from one generation to the next
generation? And furthermore ask the question, does the death tax not in
fact discourage that going from one generation to the next generation?
Is this a country that should be discouraging families from
transferring their business from mom and dad to kids, from those kids
to their kids, from those kids to their kids? What made America great
and what makes us great today is our family, the family foundation, the
family block. A death tax has no place in our society in my opinion. I
do not care who it taxes. By the way, it does not just hit 2 percent of
the population as some like to say. It hits everybody in the community.
When that money is taken out of a local community and is
[[Page 24384]]
sent to Washington, D.C. for redistribution, and it never goes back
anywhere close to the percentage back to that community from whence it
came, in the same proportion, not even close. And there is a difference
out there on this tax and there is a difference in this presidential
election. George W. Bush has made it a commitment, he will eliminate
that tax. And by a bipartisan vote on both sides of the aisle,
Republicans and Democrats, although the President vetoed it, in fact
the President not only vetoed the elimination of the death tax which
both sides of this aisle supported, he and Vice President Gore proposed
it actually increase this year by $9.5 billion. In their budget this
year they actually had an increase of $9.5 billion in the death tax.
That is a fundamental difference between the bipartisan, Republicans
and Democrats, conservative Democrats, not the liberal Democrats but
the conservative Democrats that supported that elimination, that is the
difference between that team and the liberal Democrats' and Al Gore's
proposal on the death tax.
I am not trying to be partisan here, but let us call facts as they
are. Let us call it as it is. Who is for the death tax and who is not?
Who is going to stand up and be counted to get rid of this death tax?
The same thing for the marriage penalty. That was vetoed by the
President. By the way, there are Members, conservative Democrats and
Republicans, who say get rid of this marriage tax. No, what you hear
from the liberals is, ``Hey, let's tax the rich, let's transfer the
wealth, let's move money from those who work, let's move money, let's
transfer money, not create capital, transfer.'' It is all a question of
transfer. The transfer agent is the United States Government. It is
right here in Washington, D.C.
Let me ask you this: If one of my colleagues just won the lotto
tomorrow and you won $50 million, and you want to distribute it around
the country, help people out, help people with health care, help people
buy open space, help people with hardships, would you send that $50
million to Washington, D.C. for redistribution to be handed out on your
behalf? Of course you would not. Do you think Ted Turner or the
Kennedys or any of those people send their money to Washington D.C. for
disbursement? No, they create their own foundations because they know
through their own foundations they can with some efficiency, a great
deal more efficiency, put that money to work. It is the same concept
with taxes. Do you think those tax dollars are more efficient in your
pocket or more efficient in the pocket of the United States Congress
and the President of the United States?
Clearly we ought to have some taxes. We have to fund the military. We
have to fund highways. We have to fund social services. We have to fund
Social Security. Medicare, Medicaid. We have obligations. The average
taxpayer out there does not disagree with those obligations. What the
average taxpayer disagrees with is the lack of efficiency. The
government waste, the size and the increasing size of the government.
This is a distinguishing issue in this upcoming presidential race.
Take a look at which side really has the history and has a record.
Forget all the talk they talk about. Just look at the record. Which
side, the conservatives or the liberals, increase the size of
government? Take a look at the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson and
figure out, was it the liberals who got the government to increase, was
it the liberals who put it into the deficit for 40 some years or was it
the conservatives? I am not talking about right-wing conservatives, I
am talking about moderate people who say, I understand I have to pay
some taxes but I want some justification.
Let me talk to you about a couple of the tax cuts. There is one very
important tax cut to every one of you and every one of your
constituents that we in the Republican Party with the help, by the way,
of conservative Democrats passed and it benefits every one of your
constituents that owns a home. Probably the largest tax break they have
gotten in their life. We passed it off here and guess what happened?
Nothing collapsed. Washington was able to survive. No program on social
services collapsed. No child went hungry in a school. Our military did
not miss any planes or jets as a result of this. All the dire
circumstances of allowing the person who made the money to keep a
little more of the money, none of these dire circumstances of not
letting that money go to Washington occurred.
I hear the same kind of scare tactics today. George W. Bush talks
about a tax reduction, a cut in the taxes for everybody, not just this
group, not just this group but everybody. George W. Bush said the other
day, the target ought to be everybody, it should not be a little tiny
target based on class warfare. It should be a target for everybody. I
will show you a tax that we made a target for homeowners which is a
broad target. It used to be when you sold your home, if you sold your
home for a profit, for example, you bought a home for $100,000, you
sold a home for $350,000, which means you made a profit of $250,000,
you were taxed on a $250,000 profit. That was what you were taxed on,
$250,000. On a couple if you bought a home for $200,000, you sold the
home for $700,000, you had a profit of $500,000, you were taxed on
$500,000. That is the old regime. That is the old let the government
grow bigger. That is the old look for anything you can to make it a
taxable event. Tax death, tax marriage, tax an individual's sale of
their home.
Most people in this country, the biggest investment of their lives
will be their home. The proudest investment they will have in their
lives outside of their children, but physical investment will be their
home. Where most people will spend time in their lives will be their
home. And the government has to tax it when you sell it? Come on.
A couple of years ago, the Republican leadership, with almost
complete support, I think complete support from the Republican Members
of Congress, as well as support from conservative Members of the
Democratic Party, and granted the liberal side of the party will never
vote to reduce your taxes. I can assure you, take a look at the
history. You can tell that the liberal aspect, the liberal politicians
will always want to grow the size of your government. The liberal
politicians will always want to take individual rights and form it as a
pool, as a group. They sacrifice the individual right to the benefit of
the group right. They will transfer wealth, they will transfer money
from those who work and give it to those who do not. It is just a
liberal concept. There is a fundamental difference.
The same thing showed up on this tax cut, this tax reduction bill.
These are the kind of reductions that George W. Bush talks about. These
are the kind of tax reductions that we put into place. After our bill,
and this says ``After Republicans,'' and I have got to tell you, we had
a lot of Democratic support, conservative Democrats, not the liberal
but the conservative Democrats who supported this. Now, look what
happens. Our individual, let us say Jane Adams bought the house for
$100,000, she sold it for $350,000, she made 250. She was taxed on 250.
Under our bill Jane Adams buys the house, same conditions, for 100,
sells it for 350, makes $250,000 and that is her tax right there. Zero.
That is her tax. Zero. And this is now law.
Even in the old days under the old regime, you only got one tax break
in your entire life on the sale of your home and that is if you were
older than 62 and you only got a tax break, I think up to $140,000. We
did not just give that tax break to individuals. We said, in our
country, most homes are owned by couples. Most homes are owned by
couples. What are we going to do for couples? We said, hey, for
couples, we double it. If you have got a couple, we are going to allow
the first $250,000, the first $250,000 per person to be tax free. So if
you live in a home, and most of us live in homes that today have
appreciated. In other words, they are worth more today than they were
when we bought them. That is called profit. I am not talking about
equity. I am talking about profit. Most of us live in homes where if we
sold the home, we could sell it for a profit. Under the old regime,
money would have come out of
[[Page 24385]]
your pocket and sent to Washington, D.C. simply because you sold your
home. That is the only reason that money would be taken out of your
pocket and sent to Washington, D.C., simply because you sold your home.
We changed that. When we changed it, now when you sell that home for a
profit up to $250,000 per person regardless of your age, renewable
every 2 years, that money goes in your pocket for redistribution in
your community instead of going out of your pocket to Washington, D.C.
for redistribution in the bureaucracy that Washington uses it for.
You should have heard the cries back then. Just like I hear today
when George W. Bush talks about a modest tax reduction for everybody,
you hear these scare tactics: ``Oh, my gosh, we're going to have the
deficit tomorrow. School children won't get lunches. We're not going to
get medical care. It's going to cost us.''
Look at what happened. It is the same thing when we reduced the
capital gains tax, which again with the help of conservative Democrats,
again no help from the liberal Democrats, but we did get help from the
conservative Democrats and the Republicans, we reduced capital gains
from 28 percent to 20 percent. We had the same scare tactics out there.
Oh, my gosh, the sky is falling. Reducing taxes on the American people?
What a disaster. How could the Republicans and the conservative
Democrats even possibly envision a tax reduction? It will destroy the
country. Lowering capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent, boom,
the economy went up. Just like that. More tax dollars came in. You
lowered the taxes, you had more economic activity, you had more
creation of capital and your economy shot up like a rocket and we have
been enjoying that for 3 or 4 years now since the reduction of capital
gains.
{time} 2230
Same thing on this. Did the sky fall in when people started to keep
the money they made on the sale of their house? Did the sky fall in
because the money individuals, regular working folks out there, because
the money they had they made on the sale of their house did not come
back to Washington, D.C., was not redistributed by Washington, D.C.?
Did the sky fall in as a result of that? No, of course it did not.
We now have more than any other time in history greater homeownership
by a larger population than ever in the history of this country. Our
economy has improved. It did not go down. The sky did not fall in.
So when I hear these people out there talk about scare tactics
because George W. Bush has the courage to stand up and say, look, it is
easy to criticize. It is easy to envision that Washington, D.C., ought
to be managing our money instead of us. We earned it. Washington did
not earn it. We earned it. It is amazing that these scare tactics seem
to be working out there. That somehow a tax cut, allowing the person
who made the money to keep a larger percentage of that money to reduce
the size of government, the sky is going to fall in.
Not being presumptuous, but if George W. Bush is fortunate enough to
be elected President, we are going to see a tax cut not for a targeted
group of people, not for the low income or the high income, but for
everybody. And we are going to see a tax reduction that benefits the
economy. Just like when the Republicans took capital gains and dropped
it from 28 percent to 20 percent; just like when the Republicans took
this tax on the sale of a home and reduced it for the first $500,000
for a couple to zero. Let Americans keep that amount of money in their
pocket and renew it every 2 years, we will see an economic resurgence.
We are going to see a healthy economy because the fact is the more
dollars we allow our citizens to keep, the dollars which they worked
for, the stronger our economy will be. If we take a look, and by the
way the Wall Street Journal has done splendid editorials on this, if we
take a look at the three or four major tax reductions this last century
in our government and take a look at what happened to the economy after
that tax reduction, we will find that in every case, no exceptions, the
economy improved. The economy was strengthened, and we actually had an
economic boom which followed every one of those.
Why? Because the person that makes the money has a deeper
appreciation for the money and is wiser in the utilization of that
money than is the bureaucracy of Washington, D.C., which does not have
to work for the money. It is simply getting their money by transfer.
Our constituents get their money by work. They go out and create
something and work and offer a product, they offer something of
benefit. They create that capital. In Washington, we do not create
capital. We get our money by transfer. We reach out to the people who
work. We reach out to the people that create a profit, and we suck that
money out of their pockets by transferring it to ours.
As a result of that, since the government did not have to work for
the money, the government tends to be much less efficient, much
sloppier, could care less in many circumstances how the dollars are
spent, and we could show example after example of government waste,
than does the individual.
The individual, that young man or young woman or that person, middle
age or seniors that went out and spent their working day putting that
money in their pocket, at 5 o'clock they get off shift and go home,
they are very careful about how they spend their money. They watch
their budgets. They try not to waste their money and they manage it.
The taxpayer knows how to manage the money much better than we do in
Washington, D.C.
What happens? The consequence of what I am saying, what happens when
we allow the taxpayer to keep a few more dollars in their pocket and
the government reduce its size and take the dollars that are absolutely
necessary but no more? What happens when we allow that taxpayer to
manage more money? The money is managed in a much more efficient way.
And when the money is managed in a much more efficient way, what
happens is that the economy strengthens and it begins to grow.
Mr. Speaker, what happens when the economy strengthens and begins to
grow? There are more tax dollars that are originated that come to feed
the government. It is a plus for the government. It is a plus for the
taxpayer. It is a plus for our society.
So when we hear these scare tactics, just like we heard the hour
previous to mine, scare tactics about health care, when we hear these
scare tactics about Bush's tax reductions or the Republicans, take a
look at examples that have occurred. Take a look at the capital gains
taxation. Take a look at this household tax, and we will find out that
is exactly what it was. Just like the health care, nothing much more
than scare tactics.
Mr. Speaker, let me wrap up by saying to my 366 colleagues who voted
for the creation of America's newest national park, let me say to those
366, their vision will come back generation after generation after
generation. They can be proud that during their congressional career
this should stand out as one of the highlights. Many generations into
the future will look back and say: they did the right thing. They had
the vision for future generations.
____________________
[[Page 24386]]
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 35 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
____________________
EXPENDITURE REPORTS CONCERNING OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL
Report concerning the foreign currencies and U.S. dollars utilized
for official foreign travel by the House of Representatives, pursuant
to Public Law 95-384, by a miscellaneous group during the third quarter
of 2000 is as follows:
REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN JULY 4 AND JULY 10,
2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Christopher Smith................. 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,229.25 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,229.25
Hon. Steny Hoyer....................... 7/5 7/6 Romania.................. ........... 489.90 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/6 7/7 Croatia.................. ........... 50.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/7 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 734.85 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,274.75
Hon. Benjamin Cardin................... 7/5 7/6 Romania.................. ........... 491.70 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/6 7/7 Croatia.................. ........... 50.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/7 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 737.55 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,279.25
Hon. Bob Clement....................... 7/5 7/6 Romania.................. ........... 491.70 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/6 7/7 Croatia.................. ........... 50.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/7 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 737.55 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,279.25
Hon. Robert E. ``Bud'' Cramer, Jr...... 7/5 7/6 Romania.................. ........... 491.70 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/6 7/7 Croatia.................. ........... 50.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/7 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 737.55 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,279.25
Hon. Alcee Hastings.................... 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,224.75 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,224.75
Hon. Joseph Pitts...................... 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,229.25 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,229.25
Hon. Matt Salmon....................... 7/5 7/6 Romania.................. ........... 491.70 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/6 7/7 Croatia.................. ........... 50.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/7 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 737.55 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,279.25
Hon. Louise Slaughter.................. 7/5 7/6 Romania.................. ........... 491.70 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/6 7/7 Croatia.................. ........... 50.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/7 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 737.55 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,279.25
Dr./RADM John Eisold................... 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,224.75 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,224.75
Ms. Dorothy Taft....................... 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,224.75 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,224.75
Mr. Ronald McNamara.................... 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,224.75 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,224.75
Mr. Ben Anderson....................... 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,224.75 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,224.75
Mr. John Finerty....................... 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,224.75 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,224.75
Mr. Bob Hand........................... 7/5 7/6 Romania.................. ........... 489.90 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/6 7/7 Croatia.................. ........... 50.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/7 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 734.85 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,274.75
Ms. Marlene Kaufmann................... 7/5 7/6 Romania.................. ........... 489.90 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/6 7/7 Croatia.................. ........... 50.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
7/7 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 734.85 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,274.75
Ms. Maureen Walsh...................... 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,224.75 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,224.75
Mr. Mark Gage.......................... 7/5 7/8 Romania.................. ........... 734.85 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 734.85
Ms. Marilyn Owen....................... 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,224.75 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,224.75
Mr. David Abramowitz................... 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 849.75 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 849.75
Mr. Fred Turner........................ 7/5 7/10 Romania.................. ........... 1,224.75 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,224.75
Delegation Expenses................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,635.48 ........... 2,635.48
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 25,286.35 ........... ........... ........... 2,635.48 ........... 27,921.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, Chairman, Oct. 19,
2000.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
10708. A letter from the Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition,
and Consumer Services, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Food Stamp Program:
Non-Discretionary Provisions of the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (RIN: 0584-
AC41) received October 23, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
10709. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement;
Update of Small Business Specialist Functions--received
October 23, 2000; to the Committee on Armed Services.
10710. A letter from the Director, Office of Management and
Budget, transmitting a report on the OMB Cost Estimate for
Pay-As-You-Go Calculations; to the Committee on the Budget.
10711. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary,
Department of Labor, Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Small Pension Plan Security Amendments (RIN: 1210-AA73)
received October 23, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
10712. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Energy
Conservation Standards [Docket No. EE-RM-97-500] (RIN: 1904-
AA75) received October 24, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10713. A letter from the Acting Secretary, Department of
State, transmitting a report on the Strategic Plan for 2000;
to the Committee on Government Reform.
10714. A letter from the Director, Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service, transmitting a report on the Commercial
Inventory for FY 2000; to the Committee on Government Reform.
10715. A letter from the Director, Employment Service,
Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's
final rule--Reduction in Force Retreat Rights (RIN: 3206-
AJ14) received October 24, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
10716. A letter from the Board Members, Railroad Retirement
Board, transmitting the Board's annual report on the Program
Fraud Civil Remedies Act for fiscal year 2000, pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 3810; to the Committee on Government Reform.
10717. A letter from the Chairman, Board of Directors,
Tennessee Valley Authority, transmitting a report on the
Strategic Plan for FY 2000--2005; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
10718. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General, Office
of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting
the 1999 Annual Report of the National Institute of Justice;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
10719. A letter from the General Counsel, Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, transmitting the
Board's final rule--Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Play
Area [Docket No. 98-2] (RIN: 3014-AA21) received October 23,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10720. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department
of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Amendment of Federal Airways in the Vicinity of Dallas/Fort
Worth; TX [Docket No. 00-ASW-6] received October 23, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10721. A letter from the Administrator, Department of
Transportation, FAA, transmitting a report on Pilot Records;
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
[[Page 24387]]
10722. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, FAA, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19
Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2000-NM-312-AD; Amendment 39-
11914; AD 2000-20-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 23,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10723. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, FAA, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11
(CL-600) and CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) Series Airplanes [Docket
No. 99-NM-26-AD; Amendment 39-11902; AD 2000-19-01] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received October 23, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10724. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department
of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Licensing and Safety Requirements for Operation of a Launch
Site [Docket No. FAA-1999-5833; Amendment No. 401-2, 417-1
and 420-1] (RIN: 2120-AG15) received October 23, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Science.
10725. A letter from the Program Manager, Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Labeling of
Flavored Wine Products (RIN: 1512-AB86) received October 2,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
10726. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Branch,
Department of Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Import Restrictions Imposed On
Archaeological Material From the Prehispanic Cultures of the
Republic of Nicaragua (RIN: 1515-AC70) received October 24,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
10727. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Weighted Average Interest Rate Update--received October 23,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. BLILEY: Committee on Commerce. H.R. 1689. A bill to
prohibit States from imposing restrictions on the operation
of motor vehicles providing limousine service between a place
in a State and a place in another State, and for other
purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 106-1003 Pt. 1). Ordered
to be printed.
____________________
TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the
Speaker:
[Omitted from the Record of October 24, 2000]
H.R. 4725. Referral to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce extended for a period ending not later than October
26, 2000.
[Submitted October 25, 2000]
H.R. 1882. Referral to the Committee on Ways and Means
extended for a period ending not later than October 26, 2000.
H.R. 2580. Referral to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure extended for a period ending not later than
October 26, 2000.
H.R. 4548. Referral to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce extended for a period ending not later than October
26, 2000.
H.R. 4857. Referral to the Committees on the Judiciary,
Banking and Financial Services, and Commerce extended for a
period ending not later than October 26, 2000.
H.R. 4585. Referral to the Committee on Commerce extended
for a period ending not later than October 26, 2000.
____________________
REPORTED BILL SEQUENTIALLY REFERRED
Under clause 5 of rule X, bills and reports were delivered to the
Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:
H.R. 1689. A bill to prohibit States from imposing
restrictions on the operation of motor vehicles providing
limousine service between a place in a State and a place in
another State, and for other purposes, referred to the
Committee on Transportation for a period ending not later
than October 26, 2000, for consideration of such provisions
of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of
that committee pursuant to clause 1(q), rule X.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
482. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, relative to a resolution
memorializing the Congress of the United States to review the
actions of the Food and Drug Administration, whose marketing
guidelines appear to promote and advance the best interests
of the drug companies and their advertising outlets rather
than the consumer and also, the FDA move to prohibit direct
consumer marketing or in the alternative to impose tighter
restrictions; to the Committee on Commerce.
483. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, relative to a resolution memorializing the
President and the Congress of the United States to proclaim
and designate the week of October 8 through 14 this year and
each year hereafter as ``The Mighty Eighth Air Force Week'';
to the Committee on Government Reform.
484. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the Commonwealth of The Mariana Islands, relative to
Resolution 12-85 memorializing the United States House of
Representatives to oppose the application of the U.S. federal
minimum wage to the Commonwealth; to the Committee on
Resources.
485. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, relative to a resolution memorializing the
United States Congress to enact additional Balanced Budget
Act relief in 2000 through adequate payments to Medicare
insurers and Medicare providers; jointly to the Committees on
Ways and Means and Commerce.
____________________
{time} 0703
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pease) at 7 o'clock and 3 minutes a.m.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2614, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
Mr. ARMEY submitted the following conference report and statement on
the bill (H.R. 2614) to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make
improvements to the certified development company program, and for
other purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-1004)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2614) to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make
improvements to the certified development company program,
and for other purposes, having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. ENACTMENT OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW.
The provisions of the following bills of the 106th Congress
are hereby enacted into law:
(1) H.R. 5538, as introduced on October 25, 2000 (the
Minimum Wage Act of 2000).
(2) H.R. 5542, as introduced on October 25, 2000 (the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 2000).
(3) H.R. 5543, as introduced on October 25, 2000 (the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000).
(4) H.R. 5544, as introduced on October 25, 2000 (the Pain
Relief Promotion Act of 2000).
(5) H.R. 5545, as introduced on October 25, 2000 (the Small
Business Reauthorization Act of 2000).
SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF ACT.
In publishing this Act in slip form and in the United
States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 of title 1,
United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall
include after the date of approval appendixes setting forth
the texts of the bills referred to in section 1.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Jim Talent,
Dick Armey,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Christopher Bond,
Conrad Burns,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
____________________
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2614) to amend the
Small Business Investment Act to make improvements to the
certified development company program, and for other
purposes, submit the following joint statement to the House
and the Senate in explanation of the effect of the action
agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the
accompanying conference report:
The Senate amendment struck all of the House bill after the
enacting clause and inserted a substitute text.
[[Page 24388]]
The House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate with an amendment that is a substitute for the
House bill and the Senate amendment.
The conference agreement would enact by reference the
provisions of five bills introduced on October 25, 2000.
Those bills are the following:
(1) H.R. 5538, the Minimum Wage Act of 2000.
(2) H.R. 5542, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2000.
(3) H.R. 5543, the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act of 2000.
(4) H.R. 5544, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 2000.
(5) H.R. 5545, the Small Business Reauthorization Act of
2000.
This joint statement sets out for convenience the text of
each bill that would be enacted in the conference report by
reference.
minimum wage act of 2000
The conference agreement would enact the provisions of H.R.
5538, as introduced on October 25, 2000. The text of that
bill follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Minimum Wage Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.
Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section. Not
less than $5.15 an hour during the period ending June 30,
2000, not less than $5.65 an hour during the year beginning
January 1, 2001, and not less than $6.15 an hour beginning
January 1, 2002;''.
taxpayer relief act of 2000
The conference agreement would enact the provisions of H.R.
5542, as introduced on October 25, 2000. The text of that
bill follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer
Relief Act of 2000''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of 1986 Code.
TITLE I--FSC REPEAL AND EXTRATERRITORIAL INCOME EXCLUSION
Sec. 101. Repeal of foreign sales corporation rules.
Sec. 102. Treatment of extraterritorial income.
Sec. 103. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 104. Effective date.
TITLE II--SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF
Sec. 201. Extension of work opportunity tax credit.
Sec. 202. Increase in amortizable reforestation expenditures, etc.
Sec. 203. Increase in expense treatment for small businesses.
Sec. 204. Increased deduction for meal expenses.
Sec. 205. Increased deductibility of business meal expenses for
individuals subject to Federal limitations on hours of
service.
Sec. 206. Repeal of modification of installment method.
Sec. 207. Income averaging not to increase alternative minimum tax
liability; income averaging for fishermen.
Sec. 208. Repeal of occupational taxes relating to distilled spirits,
wine, and beer.
Sec. 209. Exclusion from gross income for certain forgiven mortgage
obligations.
Sec. 210. Clarification of cash accounting rules for small business.
Sec. 211. Amendments relating to demand deposit accounts at depository
institutions.
TITLE III--HEALTH INSURANCE AND LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Deduction for 100 percent of health insurance costs of self-
employed individuals.
Sec. 302. Deduction for health and long-term care insurance costs of
individuals not participating in employer-subsidized
health plans.
Sec. 303. 2-year extension of availability of medical savings accounts.
Sec. 304. Additional consumer protections for long-term care insurance.
Sec. 305. Deduction for providing long-term care in the home to
household members.
TITLE IV--PENSION AND INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENT PROVISIONS
Sec. 400. Short title.
Subtitle A--Individual Retirement Accounts
Sec. 401. Modification of IRA contribution limits.
Sec. 402. Deemed IRAs under employer plans.
Sec. 403. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts
for charitable purposes.
Sec. 404. Modification of AGI limits for Roth IRAs.
Subtitle B--Expanding Coverage
Sec. 411. Increase in benefit and contribution limits.
Sec. 412. Plan loans for subchapter S owners, partners, and sole
proprietors.
Sec. 413. Modification of top-heavy rules.
Sec. 414. Elective deferrals not taken into account for purposes of
deduction limits.
Sec. 415. Repeal of coordination requirements for deferred compensation
plans of State and local governments and tax-exempt
organizations.
Sec. 416. Elimination of user fee for requests to IRS regarding pension
plans.
Sec. 417. Deduction limits.
Sec. 418. Option to treat elective deferrals as after-tax Roth
contributions.
Subtitle C--Enhancing Fairness for Women
Sec. 421. Catch-up contributions for individuals age 50 or over.
Sec. 422. Equitable treatment for contributions of employees to defined
contribution plans.
Sec. 423. Faster vesting of certain employer matching contributions.
Sec. 424. Simplify and update the minimum distribution rules.
Sec. 425. Clarification of tax treatment of division of section 457
plan benefits upon divorce.
Sec. 426. Provisions relating to hardship distributions.
Sec. 427. Waiver of tax on nondeductible contributions for domestic or
similar workers.
Subtitle D--Increasing Portability for Participants
Sec. 431. Rollovers allowed among various types of plans.
Sec. 432. Rollovers of IRAs into workplace retirement plans.
Sec. 433. Rollovers of after-tax contributions.
Sec. 434. Hardship exception to 60-day rule.
Sec. 435. Treatment of forms of distribution.
Sec. 436. Rationalization of restrictions on distributions.
Sec. 437. Purchase of service credit in governmental defined benefit
plans.
Sec. 438. Employers may disregard rollovers for purposes of cash-out
amounts.
Sec. 439. Minimum distribution and inclusion requirements for section
457 plans.
Subtitle E--Strengthening Pension Security and Enforcement
Sec. 441. Repeal of 155 percent of current liability funding limit.
Sec. 442. Maximum contribution deduction rules modified and applied to
all defined benefit plans.
Sec. 443. Excise tax relief for sound pension funding.
Sec. 444. Excise tax on failure to provide notice by defined benefit
plans significantly reducing future benefit accruals.
Sec. 445. Treatment of multiemployer plans under section 415.
Sec. 446. Protection of investment of employee contributions to 401(k)
plans.
Sec. 447. Periodic pension benefits statements.
Sec. 448. Prohibited allocations of stock in S corporation ESOP.
Subtitle F--Reducing Regulatory Burdens
Sec. 451. Modification of timing of plan valuations.
Sec. 452. ESOP dividends may be reinvested without loss of dividend
deduction.
Sec. 453. Repeal of transition rule relating to certain highly
compensated employees.
Sec. 454. Employees of tax-exempt entities.
Sec. 455. Clarification of treatment of employer-provided retirement
advice.
Sec. 456. Reporting simplification.
Sec. 457. Improvement of employee plans compliance resolution system.
Sec. 458. Repeal of the multiple use test.
Sec. 459. Flexibility in nondiscrimination, coverage, and line of
business rules.
Sec. 460. Extension to all governmental plans of moratorium on
application of certain nondiscrimination rules applicable
to State and local plans.
Sec. 461. Notice and consent period regarding distributions.
Sec. 462. Annual report dissemination.
Sec. 463. Technical corrections to SAVER Act.
Sec. 464. Study of pension coverage.
Subtitle G--Other ERISA Provisions
Sec. 471. Missing participants.
Sec. 472. Reduced PBGC premium for new plans of small employers.
Sec. 473. Reduction of additional PBGC premium for new and small plans.
Sec. 474. Authorization for PBGC to pay interest on premium overpayment
refunds.
Sec. 475. Substantial owner benefits in terminated plans.
Sec. 476. Multiemployer plan benefits guarantee.
Sec. 477. Civil penalties for breach of fiduciary responsibility.
Sec. 478. Benefit suspension notice.
Subtitle H--Plan Amendments
Sec. 481. Provisions relating to plan amendments.
TITLE V--SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Additional increase in arbitrage rebate exception for
governmental bonds used to finance educational
facilities.
Sec. 502. Modification of arbitrage rebate rules applicable to public
school construction bonds.
[[Page 24389]]
Sec. 503. Modification of special arbitrage rule for certain funds.
Sec. 504. Treatment of qualified public educational facility bonds as
exempt facility bonds.
Sec. 505. Expansion of qualified zone academy bond program.
TITLE VI--COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION
Subtitle A--Tax Incentives for Renewal Communities
Sec. 601. Designation of and tax incentives for renewal communities.
Sec. 602. Work opportunity credit for hiring youth residing in renewal
communities.
Subtitle B--Extension and Expansion of Empowerment Zone Incentives
Sec. 611. Authority to designate 9 additional empowerment zones.
Sec. 612. Extension of empowerment zone treatment through 2009.
Sec. 613. 20 percent employment credit for all empowerment zones
Sec. 614. Increased expensing under section 179.
Sec. 615. Higher limits on tax-exempt empowerment zone facility bonds.
Sec. 616. Nonrecognition of gain on rollover of empowerment zone
investments.
Sec. 617. Increased exclusion of gain on sale of empowerment zone
stock.
Subtitle C--New Markets Tax Credit
Sec. 621. New markets tax credit.
Subtitle D--Improvements in Low-Income Housing Credit
Sec. 631. Modification of State ceiling on low-income housing credit.
Sec. 632. Modification of criteria for allocating housing credits among
projects.
Sec. 633. Additional responsibilities of housing credit agencies.
Sec. 634. Modifications to rules relating to basis of building which is
eligible for credit.
Sec. 635. Other modifications.
Sec. 636. Carryforward rules.
Sec. 637. Effective date.
Subtitle E--Other Community Renewal and New Markets Assistance
Sec. 641. Transfer of unoccupied and substandard HUD-held housing to
local governments and community development corporations.
Sec. 642. Transfer of HUD assets in revitalization areas.
Sec. 643. Risk-sharing demonstration.
Sec. 644. Prevention and treatment of substance abuse; services
provided through religious organizations.
Subtitle F--Other Provisions
Sec. 651. Acceleration of phase-in of increase in volume cap on private
activity bonds.
Sec. 652. Modifications to expensing of environmental remediation
costs.
Sec. 653. Extension of DC homebuyer tax credit.
TITLE VII--ADMINISTRATIVE, MISCELLANEOUS, AND TECHNICAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Administrative Provisions
Sec. 701. Exemption of certain reporting requirements.
Sec. 702. Extension of deadlines for IRS compliance with certain notice
requirements.
Sec. 703. Extension of authority for undercover operations.
Sec. 704. Confidentiality of certain documents relating to closing and
similar agreements and to agreements with foreign
governments.
Sec. 705. Increase in threshold for Joint Committee reports on refunds
and credits.
Sec. 706. Treatment of missing children with respect to certain tax
benefits.
Sec. 707. Amendments to statutes referencing yield on 52-week Treasury
bills.
Sec. 708. Adjustments for Consumer Price Index error.
Sec. 709. Prevention of duplication of loss through assumption of
liabilities giving rise to a deduction.
Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 710. Repeal of 4.3-cent motor fuel excise taxes on railroads and
inland waterway transportation which remain in general
fund.
Sec. 711. Repeal of reduction of deductions for mutual life insurance
companies.
Sec. 712. Repeal of policyholders surplus account provisions.
Sec. 713. Credit to holders of qualified Amtrak bonds.
Sec. 714. Farm, fishing, and ranch risk management accounts.
Sec. 715. Extension of enhanced deduction for corporate donations of
computer technology.
Sec. 716. Relief from Federal tax liability arising with respect to
certain claims against the Department of Agriculture for
discrimination in farm credit and benefit programs.
Sec. 717. Expansion of credit for adoption expenses.
Sec. 718. Study concerning United States insurance companies with
certain offshore reinsurance affiliates.
Sec. 719. Treatment of Indian tribal governments under Federal
Unemployment Tax Act.
Subtitle C--Technical Corrections
Sec. 721. Amendments related to Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999.
Sec. 722. Amendments related to Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of
1998.
Sec. 723. Amendments related to Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998.
Sec. 724. Amendments related to Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
Sec. 725. Amendments related to Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Sec. 726. Amendments related to Small Business Job Protection Act of
1996.
Sec. 727. Amendment related to Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990.
Sec. 728. Other technical corrections.
Sec. 729. Clerical changes.
Subtitle D--Pay-Go Adjustments
Sec. 731. Avoidance of a Pay-Go sequestration for fiscal year 2001.
TITLE I--FSC REPEAL AND EXTRATERRITORIAL INCOME EXCLUSION
SEC. 101. REPEAL OF FOREIGN SALES CORPORATION RULES.
Subpart C of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1
(relating to taxation of foreign sales corporations) is
hereby repealed.
SEC. 102. TREATMENT OF EXTRATERRITORIAL INCOME.
(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1
(relating to items specifically excluded from gross income)
is amended by inserting before section 115 the following new
section:
``SEC. 114. EXTRATERRITORIAL INCOME.
``(a) Exclusion.--Gross income does not include
extraterritorial income.
``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to
extraterritorial income which is not qualifying foreign trade
income as determined under subpart E of part III of
subchapter N.
``(c) Disallowance of Deductions.--
``(1) In general.--Any deduction of a taxpayer allocated
under paragraph (2) to extraterritorial income of the
taxpayer excluded from gross income under subsection (a)
shall not be allowed.
``(2) Allocation.--Any deduction of the taxpayer properly
apportioned and allocated to the extraterritorial income
derived by the taxpayer from any transaction shall be
allocated on a proportionate basis between--
``(A) the extraterritorial income derived from such
transaction which is excluded from gross income under
subsection (a), and
``(B) the extraterritorial income derived from such
transaction which is not so excluded.
``(d) Denial of Credits for Certain Foreign Taxes.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no
credit shall be allowed under this chapter for any income,
war profits, and excess profits taxes paid or accrued to any
foreign country or possession of the United States with
respect to extraterritorial income which is excluded from
gross income under subsection (a).
``(e) Extraterritorial Income.--For purposes of this
section, the term `extraterritorial income' means the gross
income of the taxpayer attributable to foreign trading gross
receipts (as defined in section 942) of the taxpayer.''.
(b) Qualifying Foreign Trade Income.--Part III of
subchapter N of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after
subpart D the following new subpart:
``Subpart E--Qualifying Foreign Trade Income
``Sec. 941. Qualifying foreign trade income.
``Sec. 942. Foreign trading gross receipts.
``Sec. 943. Other definitions and special rules.
``SEC. 941. QUALIFYING FOREIGN TRADE INCOME.
``(a) Qualifying Foreign Trade Income.--For purposes of
this subpart and section 114--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualifying foreign trade
income' means, with respect to any transaction, the amount of
gross income which, if excluded, will result in a reduction
of the taxable income of the taxpayer from such transaction
equal to the greatest of--
``(A) 30 percent of the foreign sale and leasing income
derived by the taxpayer from such transaction,
``(B) 1.2 percent of the foreign trading gross receipts
derived by the taxpayer from the transaction, or
``(C) 15 percent of the foreign trade income derived by the
taxpayer from the transaction.
In no event shall the amount determined under subparagraph
(B) exceed 200 percent of the amount determined under
subparagraph (C).
``(2) Alternative computation.--A taxpayer may compute its
qualifying foreign trade income under a subparagraph of
paragraph (1) other than the subparagraph which results in
the greatest amount of such income.
``(3) Limitation on use of foreign trading gross receipts
method.--If any person computes its qualifying foreign trade
income from any transaction with respect to any property
under paragraph (1)(B), the qualifying foreign trade income
of such person (or any related person) with respect to any
other transaction involving such property shall be zero.
``(4) Rules for marginal costing.--The Secretary shall
prescribe regulations setting forth rules for the allocation
of expenditures in computing foreign trade income under
paragraph (1)(C) in those cases where a taxpayer is seeking
to establish or maintain a market for qualifying foreign
trade property.
``(5) Participation in international boycotts, etc.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the qualifying
foreign trade income of a taxpayer for any taxable year shall
be reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of--
``(A) an amount equal to such income multiplied by the
international boycott factor determined under section 999,
and
[[Page 24390]]
``(B) any illegal bribe, kickback, or other payment (within
the meaning of section 162(c)) paid by or on behalf of the
taxpayer directly or indirectly to an official, employee, or
agent in fact of a government.
``(b) Foreign Trade Income.--For purposes of this subpart--
``(1) In general.--The term `foreign trade income' means
the taxable income of the taxpayer attributable to foreign
trading gross receipts of the taxpayer.
``(2) Special rule for cooperatives.--In any case in which
an organization to which part I of subchapter T applies which
is engaged in the marketing of agricultural or horticultural
products sells qualifying foreign trade property, in
computing the taxable income of such cooperative, there shall
not be taken into account any deduction allowable under
subsection (b) or (c) of section 1382 (relating to patronage
dividends, per-unit retain allocations, and nonpatronage
distributions).
``(c) Foreign Sale and Leasing Income.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `foreign sale and leasing
income' means, with respect to any transaction--
``(A) foreign trade income properly allocable to activities
which--
``(i) are described in paragraph (2)(A)(i) or (3) of
section 942(b), and
``(ii) are performed by the taxpayer (or any person acting
under a contract with such taxpayer) outside the United
States, or
``(B) foreign trade income derived by the taxpayer in
connection with the lease or rental of qualifying foreign
trade property for use by the lessee outside the United
States.
``(2) Special rules for leased property.--
``(A) Sales income.--The term `foreign sale and leasing
income' includes any foreign trade income derived by the
taxpayer from the sale of property described in paragraph
(1)(B).
``(B) Limitation in certain cases.--Except as provided in
regulations, in the case of property which--
``(i) was manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted by
the taxpayer, or
``(ii) was acquired by the taxpayer from a related person
for a price which was not determined in accordance with the
rules of section 482,
the amount of foreign trade income which may be treated as
foreign sale and leasing income under paragraph (1)(B) or
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph with respect to any
transaction involving such property shall not exceed the
amount which would have been determined if the taxpayer had
acquired such property for the price determined in accordance
with the rules of section 482.
``(3) Special rules.--
``(A) Excluded property.--Foreign sale and leasing income
shall not include any income properly allocable to excluded
property described in subparagraph (B) of section 943(a)(3)
(relating to intangibles).
``(B) Only direct expenses taken into account.--For
purposes of this subsection, any expense other than a
directly allocable expense shall not be taken into account in
computing foreign trade income.
``SEC. 942. FOREIGN TRADING GROSS RECEIPTS.
``(a) Foreign Trading Gross Receipts.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, for purposes of this subpart, the term `foreign
trading gross receipts' means the gross receipts of the
taxpayer which are--
``(A) from the sale, exchange, or other disposition of
qualifying foreign trade property,
``(B) from the lease or rental of qualifying foreign trade
property for use by the lessee outside the United States,
``(C) for services which are related and subsidiary to--
``(i) any sale, exchange, or other disposition of
qualifying foreign trade property by such taxpayer, or
``(ii) any lease or rental of qualifying foreign trade
property described in subparagraph (B) by such taxpayer,
``(D) for engineering or architectural services for
construction projects located (or proposed for location)
outside the United States, or
``(E) for the performance of managerial services for a
person other than a related person in furtherance of the
production of foreign trading gross receipts described in
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
Subparagraph (E) shall not apply to a taxpayer for any
taxable year unless at least 50 percent of its foreign
trading gross receipts (determined without regard to this
sentence) for such taxable year is derived from activities
described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
``(2) Certain receipts excluded on basis of use; subsidized
receipts excluded.--The term `foreign trading gross receipts'
shall not include receipts of a taxpayer from a transaction
if--
``(A) the qualifying foreign trade property or services--
``(i) are for ultimate use in the United States, or
``(ii) are for use by the United States or any
instrumentality thereof and such use of qualifying foreign
trade property or services is required by law or regulation,
or
``(B) such transaction is accomplished by a subsidy granted
by the government (or any instrumentality thereof) of the
country or possession in which the property is manufactured,
produced, grown, or extracted.
``(3) Election to exclude certain receipts.--The term
`foreign trading gross receipts' shall not include gross
receipts of a taxpayer from a transaction if the taxpayer
elects not to have such receipts taken into account for
purposes of this subpart.
``(b) Foreign Economic Process Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (c), a
taxpayer shall be treated as having foreign trading gross
receipts from any transaction only if economic processes with
respect to such transaction take place outside the United
States as required by paragraph (2).
``(2) Requirement.--
``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are
met with respect to the gross receipts of a taxpayer derived
from any transaction if--
``(i) such taxpayer (or any person acting under a contract
with such taxpayer) has participated outside the United
States in the solicitation (other than advertising), the
negotiation, or the making of the contract relating to such
transaction, and
``(ii) the foreign direct costs incurred by the taxpayer
attributable to the transaction equal or exceed 50 percent of
the total direct costs attributable to the transaction.
``(B) Alternative 85-percent test.--A taxpayer shall be
treated as satisfying the requirements of subparagraph
(A)(ii) with respect to any transaction if, with respect to
each of at least 2 subparagraphs of paragraph (3), the
foreign direct costs incurred by such taxpayer attributable
to activities described in such subparagraph equal or exceed
85 percent of the total direct costs attributable to
activities described in such subparagraph.
``(C) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) Total direct costs.--The term `total direct costs'
means, with respect to any transaction, the total direct
costs incurred by the taxpayer attributable to activities
described in paragraph (3) performed at any location by the
taxpayer or any person acting under a contract with such
taxpayer.
``(ii) Foreign direct costs.--The term `foreign direct
costs' means, with respect to any transaction, the portion of
the total direct costs which are attributable to activities
performed outside the United States.
``(3) Activities relating to qualifying foreign trade
property.--The activities described in this paragraph are any
of the following with respect to qualifying foreign trade
property--
``(A) advertising and sales promotion,
``(B) the processing of customer orders and the arranging
for delivery,
``(C) transportation outside the United States in
connection with delivery to the customer,
``(D) the determination and transmittal of a final invoice
or statement of account or the receipt of payment, and
``(E) the assumption of credit risk.
``(4) Economic processes performed by related persons.--A
taxpayer shall be treated as meeting the requirements of this
subsection with respect to any sales transaction involving
any property if any related person has met such requirements
in such transaction or any other sales transaction involving
such property.
``(c) Exception From Foreign Economic Process
Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--The requirements of subsection (b) shall
be treated as met for any taxable year if the foreign trading
gross receipts of the taxpayer for such year do not exceed
$5,000,000.
``(2) Receipts of related persons aggregated.--All related
persons shall be treated as one person for purposes of
paragraph (1), and the limitation under paragraph (1) shall
be allocated among such persons in a manner provided in
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(3) Special rule for pass-thru entities.--In the case of
a partnership, S corporation, or other pass-thru entity, the
limitation under paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to
the partnership, S corporation, or entity and with respect to
each partner, shareholder, or other owner.
``SEC. 943. OTHER DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.
``(a) Qualifying Foreign Trade Property.--For purposes of
this subpart--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualifying foreign trade
property' means property--
``(A) manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted within or
outside the United States,
``(B) held primarily for sale, lease, or rental, in the
ordinary course of trade or business for direct use,
consumption, or disposition outside the United States, and
``(C) not more than 50 percent of the fair market value of
which is attributable to--
``(i) articles manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted
outside the United States, and
``(ii) direct costs for labor (determined under the
principles of section 263A) performed outside the United
States.
For purposes of subparagraph (C), the fair market value of
any article imported into the United States shall be its
appraised value, as determined by the Secretary under section
402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1401a) in connection
with its importation, and the direct costs for labor under
clause (ii) do not include costs that would be treated under
the principles of section 263A as direct labor costs
attributable to articles described in clause (i).
``(2) U.S. taxation to ensure consistent treatment.--
Property which (without regard to this paragraph) is
qualifying foreign trade property and which is manufactured,
produced, grown, or extracted outside the United States shall
be treated as qualifying foreign trade property only if it is
manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted by--
[[Page 24391]]
``(A) a domestic corporation,
``(B) an individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States,
``(C) a foreign corporation with respect to which an
election under subsection (e) (relating to foreign
corporations electing to be subject to United States
taxation) is in effect, or
``(D) a partnership or other pass-thru entity all of the
partners or owners of which are described in subparagraph
(A), (B), or (C).
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, tiered
partnerships or pass-thru entities shall be treated as
described in subparagraph (D) if each of the partnerships or
entities is directly or indirectly wholly owned by persons
described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
``(3) Excluded property.--The term `qualifying foreign
trade property' shall not include--
``(A) property leased or rented by the taxpayer for use by
any related person,
``(B) patents, inventions, models, designs, formulas, or
processes whether or not patented, copyrights (other than
films, tapes, records, or similar reproductions, and other
than computer software (whether or not patented), for
commercial or home use), goodwill, trademarks, trade brands,
franchises, or other like property,
``(C) oil or gas (or any primary product thereof),
``(D) products the transfer of which is prohibited or
curtailed to effectuate the policy set forth in paragraph
(2)(C) of section 3 of Public Law 96-72, or
``(E) any unprocessed timber which is a softwood.
For purposes of subparagraph (E), the term `unprocessed
timber' means any log, cant, or similar form of timber.
``(4) Property in short supply.--If the President
determines that the supply of any property described in
paragraph (1) is insufficient to meet the requirements of the
domestic economy, the President may by Executive order
designate the property as in short supply. Any property so
designated shall not be treated as qualifying foreign trade
property during the period beginning with the date specified
in the Executive order and ending with the date specified in
an Executive order setting forth the President's
determination that the property is no longer in short supply.
``(b) Other Definitions and Rules.--For purposes of this
subpart--
``(1) Transaction.--
``(A) In general.--The term `transaction' means--
``(i) any sale, exchange, or other disposition,
``(ii) any lease or rental, and
``(iii) any furnishing of services.
``(B) Grouping of transactions.--To the extent provided in
regulations, any provision of this subpart which, but for
this subparagraph, would be applied on a transaction-by-
transaction basis may be applied by the taxpayer on the basis
of groups of transactions based on product lines or
recognized industry or trade usage. Such regulations may
permit different groupings for different purposes.
``(2) United states defined.--The term `United States'
includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The preceding
sentence shall not apply for purposes of determining whether
a corporation is a domestic corporation.
``(3) Related person.--A person shall be related to another
person if such persons are treated as a single employer under
subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 or subsection (m) or (o)
of section 414, except that determinations under subsections
(a) and (b) of section 52 shall be made without regard to
section 1563(b).
``(4) Gross and taxable income.--Section 114 shall not be
taken into account in determining the amount of gross income
or foreign trade income from any transaction.
``(c) Source Rule.--Under regulations, in the case of
qualifying foreign trade property manufactured, produced,
grown, or extracted within the United States, the amount of
income of a taxpayer from any sales transaction with respect
to such property which is treated as from sources without the
United States shall not exceed--
``(1) in the case of a taxpayer computing its qualifying
foreign trade income under section 941(a)(1)(B), the amount
of the taxpayer's foreign trade income which would (but for
this subsection) be treated as from sources without the
United States if the foreign trade income were reduced by an
amount equal to 4 percent of the foreign trading gross
receipts with respect to the transaction, and
``(2) in the case of a taxpayer computing its qualifying
foreign trade income under section 941(a)(1)(C), 50 percent
of the amount of the taxpayer's foreign trade income which
would (but for this subsection) be treated as from sources
without the United States.
``(d) Treatment of Withholding Taxes.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 114(d), any
withholding tax shall not be treated as paid or accrued with
respect to extraterritorial income which is excluded from
gross income under section 114(a). For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `withholding tax' means any tax which is
imposed on a basis other than residence and for which credit
is allowable under section 901 or 903.
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
taxpayer with respect to extraterritorial income from any
transaction if the taxpayer computes its qualifying foreign
trade income with respect to the transaction under section
941(a)(1)(A).
``(e) Election To Be Treated as Domestic Corporation.--
``(1) In general.--An applicable foreign corporation may
elect to be treated as a domestic corporation for all
purposes of this title if such corporation waives all
benefits to such corporation granted by the United States
under any treaty. No election under section 1362(a) may be
made with respect to such corporation.
``(2) Applicable foreign corporation.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term `applicable foreign corporation'
means any foreign corporation if--
``(A) such corporation manufactures, produces, grows, or
extracts property in the ordinary course of such
corporation's trade or business, or
``(B) substantially all of the gross receipts of such
corporation are foreign trading gross receipts.
``(3) Period of election.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
paragraph, an election under paragraph (1) shall apply to the
taxable year for which made and all subsequent taxable years
unless revoked by the taxpayer. Any revocation of such
election shall apply to taxable years beginning after such
revocation.
``(B) Termination.--If a corporation which made an election
under paragraph (1) for any taxable year fails to meet the
requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) for
any subsequent taxable year, such election shall not apply to
any taxable year beginning after such subsequent taxable
year.
``(C) Effect of revocation or termination.--If a
corporation which made an election under paragraph (1)
revokes such election or such election is terminated under
subparagraph (B), such corporation (and any successor
corporation) may not make such election for any of the 5
taxable years beginning with the first taxable year for which
such election is not in effect as a result of such revocation
or termination.
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Requirements.--This subsection shall not apply to an
applicable foreign corporation if such corporation fails to
meet the requirements (if any) which the Secretary may
prescribe to ensure that the taxes imposed by this chapter on
such corporation are paid.
``(B) Effect of election, revocation, and termination.--
``(i) Election.--For purposes of section 367, a foreign
corporation making an election under this subsection shall be
treated as transferring (as of the first day of the first
taxable year to which the election applies) all of its assets
to a domestic corporation in connection with an exchange to
which section 354 applies.
``(ii) Revocation and termination.--For purposes of section
367, if--
``(I) an election is made by a corporation under paragraph
(1) for any taxable year, and
``(II) such election ceases to apply for any subsequent
taxable year,
such corporation shall be treated as a domestic corporation
transferring (as of the 1st day of the first such subsequent
taxable year to which such election ceases to apply) all of
its property to a foreign corporation in connection with an
exchange to which section 354 applies.
``(C) Eligibility for election.--The Secretary may by
regulation designate one or more classes of corporations
which may not make the election under this subsection.
``(f) Rules Relating to Allocations of Qualifying Foreign
Trade Income From Shared Partnerships.--
``(1) In general.--If--
``(A) a partnership maintains a separate account for
transactions (to which this subpart applies) with each
partner,
``(B) distributions to each partner with respect to such
transactions are based on the amounts in the separate account
maintained with respect to such partner, and
``(C) such partnership meets such other requirements as the
Secretary may by regulations prescribe,
then such partnership shall allocate to each partner items of
income, gain, loss, and deduction (including qualifying
foreign trade income) from any transaction to which this
subpart applies on the basis of such separate account.
``(2) Special rules.--For purposes of this subpart, in the
case of a partnership to which paragraph (1) applies--
``(A) any partner's interest in the partnership shall not
be taken into account in determining whether such partner is
a related person with respect to any other partner, and
``(B) the election under section 942(a)(3) shall be made
separately by each partner with respect to any transaction
for which the partnership maintains separate accounts for
each partner.
``(g) Exclusion for Patrons of Agricultural and
Horticultural Cooperatives.--Any amount described in
paragraph (1) or (3) of section 1385(a)--
``(1) which is received by a person from an organization to
which part I of subchapter T applies which is engaged in the
marketing of agricultural or horticultural products, and
``(2) which is allocable to qualifying foreign trade income
and designated as such by the organization in a written
notice mailed to its patrons during the payment period
described in section 1382(d),
shall be treated as qualifying foreign trade income of such
person for purposes of section 114. The taxable income of the
organization shall not be reduced under section 1382 by
reason of any amount to which the preceding sentence applies.
``(h) Special Rule for DISCs.--Section 114 shall not apply
to any taxpayer for any taxable year if, at any time during
the taxable year, the taxpayer is a member of any controlled
group of
[[Page 24392]]
corporations (as defined in section 927(d)(4), as in effect
before the date of the enactment of this subsection) of which
a DISC is a member.''
SEC. 103. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(1) The second sentence of section 56(g)(4)(B)(i) is
amended by inserting before the period ``or under section
114''.
(2) Section 275(a) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (4)(A), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (4)(B) and
inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end of paragraph (4)
the following new subparagraph:
``(C) such taxes are paid or accrued with respect to
qualifying foreign trade income (as defined in section
941).''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following the following new
sentence: ``A rule similar to the rule of section 943(d)
shall apply for purposes of paragraph (4)(C).''.
(3) Paragraph (3) of section 864(e) is amended--
(A) by striking ``For purposes of'' and inserting:
``(A) In general.--For purposes of''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Assets producing exempt extraterritorial income.--For
purposes of allocating and apportioning any interest expense,
there shall not be taken into account any qualifying foreign
trade property (as defined in section 943(a)) which is held
by the taxpayer for lease or rental in the ordinary course of
trade or business for use by the lessee outside the United
States (as defined in section 943(b)(2)).''.
(4) Section 903 is amended by striking ``164(a)'' and
inserting ``114, 164(a),''.
(5) Section 999(c)(1) is amended by inserting
``941(a)(5),'' after ``908(a),''.
(6) The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of
chapter 1 is amended by inserting before the item relating to
section 115 the following new item:
``Sec. 114. Extraterritorial income.''.
(7) The table of subparts for part III of subchapter N of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to subpart
E and inserting the following new item:
``Subpart E. Qualifying foreign trade income.''.
(8) The table of subparts for part III of subchapter N of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to subpart
C.
SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--The amendments made by this title shall
apply to transactions after September 30, 2000.
(b) No New FSCs; Termination of Inactive FSCs.--
(1) No new fscs.--No corporation may elect after September
30, 2000, to be a FSC (as defined in section 922 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect before the
amendments made by this Act).
(2) Termination of inactive fscs.--If a FSC has no foreign
trade income (as defined in section 923(b) of such Code, as
so in effect) for any period of 5 consecutive taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2001, such FSC shall cease to be
treated as a FSC for purposes of such Code for any taxable
year beginning after such period.
(c) Transition Period for Existing Foreign Sales
Corporations.--
(1) In general.--In the case of a FSC (as so defined) in
existence on September 30, 2000, and at all times thereafter,
the amendments made by this Act shall not apply to any
transaction in the ordinary course of trade or business
involving a FSC which occurs--
(A) before January 1, 2002; or
(B) after December 31, 2001, pursuant to a binding
contract--
(i) which is between the FSC (or any related person) and
any person which is not a related person; and
(ii) which is in effect on September 30, 2000, and at all
times thereafter.
For purposes of this paragraph, a binding contract shall
include a purchase option, renewal option, or replacement
option which is included in such contract and which is
enforceable against the seller or lessor.
(2) Election to have amendments apply earlier.--A taxpayer
may elect to have the amendments made by this Act apply to
any transaction by a FSC or any related person to which such
amendments would apply but for the application of paragraph
(1). Such election shall be effective for the taxable year
for which made and all subsequent taxable years, and, once
made, may be revoked only with the consent of the Secretary
of the Treasury.
(3) Exception for old earnings and profits of certain
corporations.--
(A) In general.--In the case of a foreign corporation to
which this paragraph applies--
(i) earnings and profits of such corporation accumulated in
taxable years ending before October 1, 2000, shall not be
included in the gross income of the persons holding stock in
such corporation by reason of section 943(e)(4)(B)(i), and
(ii) rules similar to the rules of clauses (ii), (iii), and
(iv) of section 953(d)(4)(B) shall apply with respect to such
earnings and profits.
The preceding sentence shall not apply to earnings and
profits acquired in a transaction after September 30, 2000,
to which section 381 applies unless the distributor or
transferor corporation was immediately before the transaction
a foreign corporation to which this paragraph applies.
(B) Existing fscs.--This paragraph shall apply to any
controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section 957)
if--
(i) such corporation is a FSC (as so defined) in existence
on September 30, 2000,
(ii) such corporation is eligible to make the election
under section 943(e) by reason of being described in
paragraph (2)(B) of such section, and
(iii) such corporation makes such election not later than
for its first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2001.
(C) Other corporations.--This paragraph shall apply to any
controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section 957),
and such corporation shall (notwithstanding any provision of
section 943(e)) be treated as an applicable foreign
corporation for purposes of section 943(e), if--
(i) such corporation is in existence on September 30, 2000,
(ii) as of such date, such corporation is wholly owned
(directly or indirectly) by a domestic corporation
(determined without regard to any election under section
943(e)),
(iii) for each of the 3 taxable years preceding the first
taxable year to which the election under section 943(e) by
such controlled foreign corporation applies--
(I) all of the gross income of such corporation is subpart
F income (as defined in section 952), including by reason of
section 954(b)(3)(B), and
(II) in the ordinary course of such corporation's trade or
business, such corporation regularly sold (or paid
commissions) to a FSC which on September 30, 2000, was a
related person to such corporation,
(iv) such corporation has never made an election under
section 922(a)(2) (as in effect before the date of the
enactment of this paragraph) to be treated as a FSC, and
(v) such corporation makes the election under section
943(e) not later than for its first taxable year beginning
after December 31, 2001.
The preceding sentence shall cease to apply as of the date
that the domestic corporation referred to in clause (ii)
ceases to wholly own (directly or indirectly) such controlled
foreign corporation.
(4) Related person.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term ``related person'' has the meaning given to such term by
section 943(b)(3).
(5) Section references.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, any reference in this subsection to a section or
other provision shall be considered to be a reference to a
section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended by this title.
(d) Special Rules Relating to Leasing Transactions.--
(1) Sales income.--If foreign trade income in connection
with the lease or rental of property described in section
927(a)(1)(B) of such Code (as in effect before the amendments
made by this Act) is treated as exempt foreign trade income
for purposes of section 921(a) of such Code (as so in
effect), such property shall be treated as property described
in section 941(c)(1)(B) of such Code (as added by this Act)
for purposes of applying section 941(c)(2) of such Code (as
so added) to any subsequent transaction involving such
property to which the amendments made by this Act apply.
(2) Limitation on use of gross receipts method.--If any
person computed its foreign trade income from any transaction
with respect to any property on the basis of a transfer price
determined under the method described in section 925(a)(1) of
such Code (as in effect before the amendments made by this
Act), then the qualifying foreign trade income (as defined in
section 941(a) of such Code, as in effect after such
amendment) of such person (or any related person) with
respect to any other transaction involving such property (and
to which the amendments made by this Act apply) shall be
zero.
TITLE II--SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Section 51(c)(4)(B) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2001'' and inserting ``June 30, 2004''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after December 31, 2001.
SEC. 202. INCREASE IN AMORTIZABLE REFORESTATION EXPENDITURES,
ETC.
(a) Increase in Dollar Limitation.--Paragraph (1) of
section 194(b) (relating to amortization of reforestation
expenditures) is amended by striking ``$10,000 ($5,000'' and
inserting ``$25,000 ($12,500''.
(b) Temporary Suspension of Increased Dollar Limitation.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 194 (relating to
amortization of reforestation expenditures) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Suspension of dollar limitation.--Paragraph (1) shall
not apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000,
and before January 1, 2004.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 48(b)
is amended by striking ``section 194(b)(1)'' and inserting
``section 194(b)(1) and without regard to section
194(b)(5)''.
(c) Capital Gain Treatment Under Section 631(b) To Apply to
Outright Sales by Land Owner.--
(1) In general.--The first sentence of section 631(b)
(relating to disposal of timber with a retained economic
interest) is amended by striking ``retains an economic
interest in such timber'' and inserting ``either retains an
economic interest in such timber or makes an outright sale of
such timber''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The third sentence of section
631(b) is amended by striking
[[Page 24393]]
``The date of disposal'' and inserting ``In the case of
disposal of timber with a retained economic interest, the
date of disposal''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) Subsections (a) and (b).--The amendments made by
subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
(2) Subsection (c).--The amendment made by subsection (c)
shall apply to sales after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 203. INCREASE IN EXPENSE TREATMENT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) (relating
to dollar limitation) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate cost which may be
taken into account under subsection (a) for any taxable year
shall not exceed $35,000.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 204. INCREASED DEDUCTION FOR MEAL EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 274(n) (relating
to only 50 percent of meal and entertainment expenses allowed
as deduction) is amended by striking ``50 percent'' in the
text and inserting ``the allowable percentage''.
(b) Allowable Percentage.--Subsection (n) of section 274 is
amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph
(1) the following new paragraph:
``(2) Allowable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the allowable percentage is--
``(A) in the case of amounts for items described in
paragraph (1)(B), 50 percent, and
``(B) in the case of expenses for food or beverages, 70
percent.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for subsection (n)
of section 274 is amended by striking ``50 Percent'' and
inserting ``Limited Percentages''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 205. INCREASED DEDUCTIBILITY OF BUSINESS MEAL EXPENSES
FOR INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LIMITATIONS
ON HOURS OF SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 274(n) (relating
to limited percentages of meal and entertainment expenses
allowed as deduction), as redesignated by section 204, is
amended to read as follows:
``(4) Special rule for individuals subject to federal hours
of service.--In the case of any expenses for food or
beverages consumed while away from home (within the meaning
of section 162(a)(2)) by an individual during, or incident
to, the period of duty subject to the hours of service
limitations of the Department of Transportation, paragraph
(2)(B) shall be applied by substituting `80 percent' for `70
percent'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 206. REPEAL OF MODIFICATION OF INSTALLMENT METHOD.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 536 of the
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
(relating to modification of installment method and repeal of
installment method for accrual method taxpayers) is repealed
effective with respect to sales and other dispositions
occurring on or after the date of the enactment of such Act.
(b) Applicability.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall
be applied and administered as if that subsection (and the
amendments made by that subsection) had not been enacted.
SEC. 207. INCOME AVERAGING NOT TO INCREASE ALTERNATIVE
MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY; INCOME AVERAGING FOR
FISHERMEN.
(a) In General.--Section 55(c) (defining regular tax) is
amended by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and
by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Coordination with income averaging for farmers and
fishermen.--Solely for purposes of this section, section 1301
(relating to averaging of farm and fishing income) shall not
apply in computing the regular tax.''.
(b) Allowing Income Averaging for Fishermen.--
(1) In general.--Section 1301(a) is amended by striking
``farming business'' and inserting ``farming business or
fishing business''.
(2) Definition of elected farm income.--
(A) In general.--Clause (i) of section 1301(b)(1)(A) is
amended by inserting ``or fishing business'' before the
semicolon.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (B) of section
1301(b)(1) is amended by inserting ``or fishing business''
after ``farming business'' both places it occurs.
(3) Definition of fishing business.--Section 1301(b) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Fishing business.--The term `fishing business' means
the conduct of commercial fishing as defined in section 3 of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(16 U.S.C. 1802).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 208. REPEAL OF OCCUPATIONAL TAXES RELATING TO DISTILLED
SPIRITS, WINE, AND BEER.
(a) Repeal of Occupational Taxes.--
(1) In general.--The following provisions of part II of
subchapter A of chapter 51 (relating to occupational taxes)
are hereby repealed:
(A) Subpart A (relating to proprietors of distilled spirits
plants, bonded wine cellars, etc.).
(B) Subpart B (relating to brewer).
(C) Subpart D (relating to wholesale dealers) (other than
sections 5114 and 5116).
(D) Subpart E (relating to retail dealers) (other than
section 5124).
(E) Subpart G (relating to general provisions) (other than
sections 5142, 5143, 5145, and 5146).
(2) Nonbeverage domestic drawback.--Section 5131 is amended
by striking ``, on payment of a special tax per annum,''.
(3) Industrial use of distilled spirits.--Section 5276 is
hereby repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1)(A) The heading for part II of subchapter A of chapter
51 and the table of subparts for such part are amended to
read as follows:
``PART II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
``Subpart A. Manufacturers of stills.
``Subpart B. Nonbeverage domestic drawback claimants.
``Subpart C. Recordkeeping by dealers.
``Subpart D. Other provisions.''.
(B) The table of parts for such subchapter A is amended by
striking the item relating to part II and inserting the
following new item:
``Part II. Miscellaneous provisions.''.
(2) Subpart C of part II of such subchapter (relating to
manufacturers of stills) is redesignated as subpart A.
(3)(A) Subpart F of such part II (relating to nonbeverage
domestic drawback claimants), as amended by paragraph (5), is
redesignated as subpart B and sections 5131 through 5134 are
redesignated as sections 5111 through 5114, respectively.
(B) The table of sections for such subpart B, as so
redesignated, is amended--
(i) by redesignating the items relating to sections 5131
through 5134 as relating to sections 5111 through 5114,
respectively, and
(ii) by striking ``and rate of tax'' in the item relating
to section 5111, as so redesignated.
(C) Section 5111, as redesignated by subparagraph (A), is
amended--
(i) by striking ``AND RATE OF TAX'' in the section heading,
(ii) by striking ``(a) Eligibility for Drawback.--'', and
(iii) by striking subsection (b).
(4) Part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 is amended by
adding after subpart B, as redesignated by paragraph (3), the
following new subpart:
``Subpart C--Recordkeeping by Dealers
``Sec. 5121. Recordkeeping by wholesale dealers.
``Sec. 5122. Recordkeeping by retail dealers.
``Sec. 5123. Preservation and inspection of records, and entry of
premises for inspection.''.
(5)(A) Section 5114 (relating to records) is moved to
subpart C of such part II and inserted after the table of
sections for such subpart.
(B) Section 5114 is amended--
(i) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following new heading:
``SEC. 5121. RECORDKEEPING BY WHOLESALE DEALERS.'',
and
(ii) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and
by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Wholesale Dealers.--For purposes of this part--
``(1) Wholesale dealer in liquors.--The term `wholesale
dealer in liquors' means any dealer (other than a wholesale
dealer in beer) who sells, or offers for sale, distilled
spirits, wines, or beer, to another dealer.
``(2) Wholesale dealer in beer.--The term `wholesale dealer
in beer' means any dealer who sells, or offers for sale,
beer, but not distilled spirits or wines, to another dealer.
``(3) Dealer.--The term `dealer' means any person who
sells, or offers for sale, any distilled spirits, wines, or
beer.
``(4) Presumption in case of sale of 20 wine gallons or
more.--The sale, or offer for sale, of distilled spirits,
wines, or beer, in quantities of 20 wine gallons or more to
the same person at the same time, shall be presumptive
evidence that the person making such sale, or offer for sale,
is engaged in or carrying on the business of a wholesale
dealer in liquors or a wholesale dealer in beer, as the case
may be. Such presumption may be overcome by evidence
satisfactorily showing that such sale, or offer for sale, was
made to a person other than a dealer.''.
(C) Paragraph (3) of section 5121(d), as so redesignated,
is amended by striking ``section 5146'' and inserting
``section 5123''.
(6)(A) Section 5124 (relating to records) is moved to
subpart C of part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 and
inserted after section 5121.
(B) Section 5124 is amended--
(i) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following new heading:
``SEC. 5122. RECORDKEEPING BY RETAIL DEALERS.'',
(ii) by striking ``section 5146'' in subsection (c) and
inserting ``section 5123'', and
(iii) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and
inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
``(c) Retail Dealers.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Retail dealer in liquors.--The term `retail dealer in
liquors' means any dealer (other than a retail dealer in
beer) who sells, or offers for sale, distilled spirits,
wines, or beer, to any person other than a dealer.
[[Page 24394]]
``(2) Retail dealer in beer.--The term `retail dealer in
beer' means any dealer who sells, or offers for sale, beer,
but not distilled spirits or wines, to any person other than
a dealer.
``(3) Dealer.--The term `dealer' has the meaning given such
term by section 5121(c)(3).''.
(7) Section 5146 is moved to subpart C of part II of
subchapter A of chapter 51, inserted after section 5122, and
redesignated as section 5123.
(8) Part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 is amended by
inserting after subpart C the following new subpart:
``Subpart D--Other Provisions
``Sec. 5131. Packaging distilled spirits for industrial uses.
``Sec. 5132. Prohibited purchases by dealers.''.
(9) Section 5116 is moved to subpart D of part II of
subchapter A of chapter 51, inserted after the table of
sections, redesignated as section 5131, and amended by
inserting ``(as defined in section 5121(c))'' after
``dealer'' in subsection (a).
(10) Subpart D of part II of subchapter A of chapter 51 is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 5132. PROHIBITED PURCHASES BY DEALERS.
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, it shall be unlawful for a
dealer to purchase distilled spirits from any person other
than a wholesale dealer in liquors who is required to keep
the records prescribed by section 5121.
``(b) Penalty and Forfeiture.--
``For penalty and forfeiture provisions applicable to violations of
subsection (a), see sections 5687 and 7302.''.
(11) Subsection (b) of section 5002 is amended--
(A) by striking ``section 5112(a)'' and inserting ``section
5121(c)(3)'',
(B) by striking ``section 5112'' and inserting ``section
5121(c)'', and
(C) by striking ``section 5122'' and inserting ``section
5122(c)''.
(12) Subparagraph (A) of section 5010(c)(2) is amended by
striking ``section 5134'' and inserting ``section 5114''.
(13) Subsection (d) of section 5052 is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Brewer.--For purposes of this chapter, the term
`brewer' means any person who brews beer or produces beer for
sale. Such term shall not include any person who produces
only beer exempt from tax under section 5053(e).''.
(14) The text of section 5182 is amended to read as
follows:
``For provisions requiring recordkeeping by wholesale liquor dealers,
see section 5112, and by retail liquor dealers, see section 5122.''.
(15) Subsection (b) of section 5402 is amended by striking
``section 5092'' and inserting ``section 5052(d)''.
(16) Section 5671 is amended by striking ``or 5091''.
(17)(A) Part V of subchapter J of chapter 51 is hereby
repealed.
(B) The table of parts for such subchapter J is amended by
striking the item relating to part V.
(18)(A) Sections 5142, 5143, and 5145 are moved to
subchapter D of chapter 52, inserted after section 5731,
redesignated as sections 5732, 5733, and 5734, respectively,
and amended--
(i) by striking ``this part'' each place it appears and
inserting ``this subchapter'', and
(ii) by striking ``this subpart'' in section 5732(c)(2) (as
so redesignated) and inserting ``this subchapter''.
(B) Section 5732, as redesignated by subparagraph (A), is
amended by striking ``(except the tax imposed by section
5131)'' each place it appears.
(C) Subsection (c) of section 5733, as redesignated by
subparagraph (A), is amended by striking paragraph (2) and by
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(D) The table of sections for subchapter D of chapter 52 is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
``Sec. 5732. Payment of tax.
``Sec. 5733. Provisions relating to liability for occupational taxes.
``Sec. 5734. Application of State laws.''.
(E) Section 5731 is amended by striking subsection (c) and
by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).
(19) Subsection (c) of section 6071 is amended by striking
``section 5142'' and inserting ``section 5732''.
(20) Paragraph (1) of section 7652(g) is amended--
(A) by striking ``subpart F'' and inserting ``subpart B'',
and
(B) by striking ``section 5131(a)'' and inserting ``section
5111(a)''.
(21) The table of sections for subchapter D of chapter 51
is amended by striking the item relating to section 5276.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on July 1, 2001, but shall not apply to
taxes imposed for periods before such date.
SEC. 209. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR CERTAIN FORGIVEN
MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 108(a) (relating
to exclusion from gross income) is amended by striking ``or''
at the end of both subparagraphs (A) and (C), by striking the
period at the end of subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, or'',
and by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) in the case of an individual, the indebtedness
discharged is qualified residential indebtedness.''.
(b) Qualified Residential Indebtedness.--Section 108
(relating to discharge of indebtedness) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Qualified Residential Indebtedness.--
``(1) Limitations.--The amount excluded under subparagraph
(E) of subsection (a)(1) with respect to any qualified
residential indebtedness shall not exceed the excess (if any)
of--
``(A) the outstanding principal amount of such indebtedness
(immediately before the discharge), over
``(B) the sum of--
``(i) the amount realized from the sale of the real
property securing such indebtedness reduced by the cost of
such sale, and
``(ii) the outstanding principal amount of any other
indebtedness secured by such property.
``(2) Qualified residential indebtedness.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified residential
indebtedness' means indebtedness which--
``(i) was incurred or assumed by the taxpayer in connection
with real property used as the principal residence (within
the meaning of section 121) of the taxpayer and is secured by
such real property,
``(ii) was incurred or assumed to acquire, construct,
reconstruct, or substantially improve such real property, and
``(iii) with respect to which such taxpayer makes an
election to have this paragraph apply.
``(B) Refinanced indebtedness.--Such term shall include
indebtedness resulting from the refinancing of indebtedness
under subparagraph (A)(ii), but only to the extent the amount
of the indebtedness resulting from such refinancing does not
exceed the amount of the refinanced indebtedness.
``(C) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include qualified
farm indebtedness or qualified real property business
indebtedness.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 108(a) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and (D)'' and
inserting ``(D), and (E)'', and
(B) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) Insolvency exclusion takes precedence over qualified
farm exclusion, qualified real property business exclusion,
and qualified residential indebtedness exclusion.--
Subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) of paragraph (1) shall not
apply to a discharge to the extent the taxpayer is
insolvent.''.
(2) Paragraph (1) of section 108(b) is amended by striking
``or (C)'' and inserting ``(C), or (E)''.
(3) Subsection (c) of section 121 is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rule relating to discharge of indebtedness.--
The amount of gain which (but for this paragraph) would be
excluded from gross income under subsection (a) with respect
to a principal residence shall be reduced by the amount
excluded from gross income under section 108(a)(1)(E) with
respect to such residence.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to discharges after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 210. CLARIFICATION OF CASH ACCOUNTING RULES FOR SMALL
BUSINESS.
(a) Cash Accounting Permitted.--Section 446 (relating to
general rule for methods of accounting) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Small Business Taxpayers Permitted To Use Cash
Accounting Method Without Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, an eligible taxpayer shall not be required to use
an accrual method of accounting for any taxable year.
``(2) Eligible taxpayer.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--A taxpayer is an eligible taxpayer with
respect to any taxable year if, for all prior taxable years
beginning after October 31, 1999, the taxpayer (or any
predecessor) met the gross receipts test of subparagraph (B).
``(B) Gross receipts test.--A taxpayer meets the gross
receipts test of this subparagraph for any prior taxable year
if the average annual gross receipts of the taxpayer (or any
predecessor) for the 3-taxable-year period ending with such
prior taxable year does not exceed $2,500,000. The rules of
paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 448(c) shall apply for
purposes of the preceding sentence.''
(b) Clarification of Inventory Rules for Small Business.--
Section 471 (relating to general rule for inventories) is
amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and
by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Small Business Taxpayers Not Required To Use
Inventories.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible taxpayer shall not be
required to use inventories under this section for a taxable
year.
``(2) Treatment of taxpayers not using inventories.--If an
eligible taxpayer elects not to use inventories with respect
to any property for any taxable year beginning after the date
of the enactment of this section, such property shall be
treated as a material or supply which is not incidental.
``(3) Eligible taxpayer.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `eligible taxpayer' has the meaning given such term
by section 446(g)(2).''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
[[Page 24395]]
(2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any
taxpayer required by the amendments made by this section to
change its method of accounting for any taxable year--
(A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the
taxpayer,
(B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
(C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken
into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account
over a period (not greater than 4 taxable years) beginning
with such taxable year.
SEC. 211. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS AT
DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS.
(a) Interest-Bearing Transaction Accounts Authorized.--
(1) Federal reserve act.--Section 19(i) of the Federal
Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371a) is amended by inserting at the
end the following: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, a member bank may permit the owner of any
deposit, any account which is a deposit, or any account on
which interest or dividends are paid to make up to 24
transfers per month (or such greater number as the Board may
determine by rule or order), for any purpose, to a demand
deposit account of the owner in the same institution. With
respect to an escrow account maintained in connection with a
loan, a lender or servicer shall pay interest on such account
only if such payments are required by contract between the
lender or servicer and the borrower, or a specific statutory
provision of the law of the State in which the security
property is located requires the lender or servicer to make
such payments. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to prevent an account offered pursuant to this subsection
from being considered a transaction account for purposes of
this Act.''.
(2) Home owners' loan act.--
(A) In general.--Section 5(b)(1) of the Home Owners' Loan
Act (12 U.S.C. 1464 (b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(G) Transfers.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this paragraph, a Federal savings association may permit the
owner of any deposit or share, any account which is a deposit
or share, or any account on which interest or dividends are
paid to make up to 24 transfers per month (or such greater
number as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System may determine by rule or order under section 19(i) to
be permissible for member banks), for any purpose, to a
demand deposit account of the owner in the same institution.
With respect to an escrow account maintained in connection
with a loan, a lender or servicer shall pay interest on such
account only if such payments are required by contract
between the lender or servicer and the borrower, or a
specific statutory provision of the law of the State in which
the security property is located requires the lender or
servicer to make such payments. Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to prevent an account offered pursuant to
this subsection from being considered a transaction account
(as defined in section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act) for
purposes of the Federal Reserve Act.''.
(B) Repeal.--Effective on at the end of the 2-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, section
5(b)(1) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1464 (b)(1))
is amended by striking subparagraph (G).
(3) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 18(g) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(g)) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Transfers.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, an insured nonmember bank or insured State
savings association may permit the owner of any deposit or
share, any account which is a deposit or share, or any
account on which interest or dividends are paid to make up to
24 transfers per month (or such greater number as the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may determine by
rule or order under section 19(i) to be permissible for
member banks), for any purpose, to a demand deposit account
of the owner in the same institution. With respect to an
escrow account maintained in connection with a loan, a lender
or servicer shall pay interest on such account only if such
payments are required by contract between the lender or
servicer and the borrower, or a specific statutory provision
of the law of the State in which the security property is
located requires the lender or servicer to make such
payments. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
prevent an account offered pursuant to this subsection from
being considered a transaction account (as defined in section
19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act) for purposes of the Federal
Reserve Act.''.
(b) Repeal of Prohibition on Payment of Interest on Demand
Deposits.--
(1) Federal reserve act.--Section 19(i) of the Federal
Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371a) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) [Repealed]''.
(2) Home owners' loan act.--The 1st sentence of section
5(b)(1)(B) of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C.
1464(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``savings association
may not--'' and all that follows through ``(ii) permit any''
and inserting ``savings association may not permit any''.
(3) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 18(g) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(g)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(g) [Repealed]''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE III--HEALTH INSURANCE AND LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. DEDUCTION FOR 100 PERCENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS
OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 162(l) is amended
to read as follows:
``(1) Allowance of deduction.--In the case of an individual
who is an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1),
there shall be allowed as a deduction under this section an
amount equal to 100 percent of the amount paid during the
taxable year for insurance which constitutes medical care for
the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and dependents.''.
(b) Clarification of Limitations on Other Coverage.--The
first sentence of section 162(l)(2)(B) is amended to read as
follows: ``Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any taxpayer for
any calendar month for which the taxpayer participates in any
subsidized health plan maintained by any employer (other than
an employer described in section 401(c)(4)) of the taxpayer
or the spouse of the taxpayer.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 302. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE
COSTS OF INDIVIDUALS NOT PARTICIPATING IN
EMPLOYER-SUBSIDIZED HEALTH PLANS.
(a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 is
amended by redesignating section 222 as section 223 and by
inserting after section 221 the following new section:
``SEC. 222. HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE COSTS.
``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to the
applicable percentage of the amount paid during the taxable
year for insurance which constitutes medical care for the
taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and dependents.
``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the applicable percentage shall be determined in
accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years beginning in calendarThe applicable percentage is--
2001, 2002, and 2003.........................................25 ....
2004.........................................................35 ....
2005.........................................................65 ....
2006 and thereafter........................................100. ....
``(c) Limitation Based on Other Coverage.--
``(1) Coverage under certain subsidized employer plans.--
``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
taxpayer for any calendar month for which the taxpayer
participates in any health plan maintained by any employer of
the taxpayer or of the spouse of the taxpayer if for such
month 50 percent or more of the cost of coverage under such
plan (determined under section 4980B and without regard to
payments made with respect to any coverage described in
subsection (e)) is paid or incurred by the employer.
``(B) Employer contributions to cafeteria plans, flexible
spending arrangements, and medical savings accounts.--
Employer contributions to a cafeteria plan, a flexible
spending or similar arrangement, or a medical savings account
which are excluded from gross income under section 106 shall
be treated for purposes of subparagraph (A) as paid by the
employer.
``(C) Aggregation of plans of employer.--A health plan
which is not otherwise described in subparagraph (A) shall be
treated as described in such subparagraph if such plan would
be so described if all health plans of persons treated as a
single employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of
section 414 were treated as one health plan.
``(D) Separate application to health insurance and long-
term care insurance.--Subparagraphs (A) and (C) shall be
applied separately with respect to--
``(i) plans which include primarily coverage for qualified
long-term care services or are qualified long-term care
insurance contracts, and
``(ii) plans which do not include such coverage and are not
such contracts.
``(2) Coverage under certain federal programs.--
``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
amount paid for any coverage for an individual for any
calendar month if, as of the first day of such month, the
individual is covered under any medical care program
described in--
``(i) title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social Security Act,
``(ii) chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code,
``(iii) chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code,
``(iv) chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, or
``(v) the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
``(B) Exceptions.--
``(i) Qualified long-term care.--Subparagraph (A) shall not
apply to amounts paid for coverage under a qualified long-
term care insurance contract.
``(ii) Continuation coverage of fehbp.--Subparagraph
(A)(iv) shall not apply to coverage which is comparable to
continuation coverage under section 4980B.
``(d) Long-Term Care Deduction Limited to Qualified Long-
Term Care Insurance Contracts.--In the case of a qualified
long-term
[[Page 24396]]
care insurance contract, only eligible long-term care
premiums (as defined in section 213(d)(10)) may be taken into
account under subsection (a).
``(e) Deduction Not Available for Payment of Ancillary
Coverage Premiums.--Any amount paid as a premium for
insurance which provides for--
``(1) coverage for accidents, disability, dental care,
vision care, or a specified illness, or
``(2) making payments of a fixed amount per day (or other
period) by reason of being hospitalized,
shall not be taken into account under subsection (a).
``(f ) Special Rules.--
``(1) Coordination with deduction for health insurance
costs of self-employed individuals.--The amount taken into
account by the taxpayer in computing the deduction under
section 162(l) shall not be taken into account under this
section.
``(2) Coordination with medical expense deduction.--The
amount taken into account by the taxpayer in computing the
deduction under this section shall not be taken into account
under section 213.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this section,
including regulations requiring employers to report to their
employees and the Secretary such information as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.''.
(b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Itemizes
Other Deductions.--Subsection (a) of section 62 is amended by
inserting after paragraph (17) the following new item:
``(18) Health and long-term care insurance costs.--The
deduction allowed by section 222.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII
of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by striking the last
item and inserting the following new items:
``Sec. 222. Health and long-term care insurance costs.
``Sec. 223. Cross reference.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 303. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF AVAILABILITY OF MEDICAL SAVINGS
ACCOUNTS.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (2) and (3)(B) of section
220(i) (defining cut-off year) are each amended by striking
``2000'' each place it appears and inserting ``2002''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 220(j) is amended--
(A) by striking ``1998 or 1999'' each place it appears and
inserting ``1998, 1999, 2000, or 2001'', and
(B) by striking ``600,000 (750,000 in the case of 1999)''
and inserting ``750,000 (600,000 in the case of 1998)''.
(2) Subparagraph (A) of section 220(j)(4) is amended by
striking ``, 1998, and 1999'' and inserting ``and of each
calendar year after 1997 and before 2002''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 304. ADDITIONAL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS FOR LONG-TERM CARE
INSURANCE.
(a) Additional Protections Applicable to Long-Term Care
Insurance.--Subparagraph (A) of section 7702B(g)(2) (relating
to requirements of model regulation and Act) is amended to
read as follows:
``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are
met with respect to any contract if such contract meets--
``(i) Model regulation.--The following requirements of the
model regulation:
``(I) Section 6A (relating to guaranteed renewal or
noncancellability), and the requirements of section 6B of the
model Act relating to such section 6A.
``(II) Section 6B (relating to prohibitions on limitations
and exclusions).
``(III) Section 6C (relating to extension of benefits).
``(IV) Section 6D (relating to continuation or conversion
of coverage).
``(V) Section 6E (relating to discontinuance and
replacement of policies).
``(VI) Section 7 (relating to unintentional lapse).
``(VII) Section 8 (relating to disclosure), other than
section 8F thereof.
``(VIII) Section 11 (relating to prohibitions against post-
claims underwriting).
``(IX) Section 12 (relating to minimum standards).
``(X) Section 13 (relating to requirement to offer
inflation protection), except that any requirement for a
signature on a rejection of inflation protection shall permit
the signature to be on an application or on a separate form.
``(XI) Section 25 (relating to prohibition against
preexisting conditions and probationary periods in
replacement policies or certificates).
``(XII) The provisions of section 26 relating to contingent
nonforfeiture benefits, if the policyholder declines the
offer of a nonforfeiture provision described in paragraph
(4).
``(ii) Model act.--The following requirements of the model
Act:
``(I) Section 6C (relating to preexisting conditions).
``(II) Section 6D (relating to prior hospitalization).
``(III) The provisions of section 8 relating to contingent
nonforfeiture benefits, if the policyholder declines the
offer of a nonforfeiture provision described in paragraph
(4).
``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) Model provisions.--The terms `model regulation' and
`model Act' mean the long-term care insurance model
regulation, and the long-term care insurance model Act,
respectively, promulgated by the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (as adopted as of September 2000).
``(ii) Coordination.--Any provision of the model regulation
or model Act listed under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph
(A) shall be treated as including any other provision of such
regulation or Act necessary to implement the provision.
``(iii) Determination.--For purposes of this section and
section 4980C, the determination of whether any requirement
of a model regulation or the model Act has been met shall be
made by the Secretary.''
(b) Excise Tax.--Paragraph (1) of section 4980C(c)
(relating to requirements of model provisions) is amended to
read as follows:
``(1) Requirements of model provisions.--
``(A) Model regulation.--The following requirements of the
model regulation must be met:
``(i) Section 9 (relating to required disclosure of rating
practices to consumer).''
``(ii) Section 14 (relating to application forms and
replacement coverage).
``(iii) Section 15 (relating to reporting requirements),
except that the issuer shall also report at least annually
the number of claims denied during the reporting period for
each class of business (expressed as a percentage of claims
denied), other than claims denied for failure to meet the
waiting period or because of any applicable preexisting
condition.
``(iv) Section 22 (relating to filing requirements for
marketing).
``(v) Section 23 (relating to standards for marketing),
including inaccurate completion of medical histories, other
than paragraphs (1), (6), and (9) of section 23C, except
that--
``(I) in addition to such requirements, no person shall, in
selling or offering to sell a qualified long-term care
insurance contract, misrepresent a material fact; and
``(II) no such requirements shall include a requirement to
inquire or identify whether a prospective applicant or
enrollee for long-term care insurance has accident and
sickness insurance.
``(vi) Section 24 (relating to suitability).
``(vii) Section 29 (relating to standard format outline of
coverage).
``(viii) Section 30 (relating to requirement to deliver
shopper's guide).
The requirements referred to in clause (vi) shall not include
those portions of the personal worksheet described in
Appendix B relating to consumer protection requirements not
imposed by section 4980C or 7702B.
``(B) Model act.--The following requirements of the model
Act must be met:
``(i) Section 6F (relating to right to return), except that
such section shall also apply to denials of applications and
any refund shall be made within 30 days of the return or
denial.
``(ii) Section 6G (relating to outline of coverage).
``(iii) Section 6H (relating to requirements for
certificates under group plans).
``(iv) Section 6I (relating to policy summary).
``(v) Section 6J (relating to monthly reports on
accelerated death benefits).
``(vi) Section 7 (relating to incontestability period).
``(C) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
terms `model regulation' and `model Act' have the meanings
given such terms by section 7702B(g)(2)(B).''
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to policies issued more than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 305. DEDUCTION FOR PROVIDING LONG-TERM CARE IN THE HOME
TO HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
(a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 is
amended by redesignating section 223 as section 224 and by
inserting after section 222 the following new section:
``SEC. 223. PROVISION OF LONG-TERM CARE IN THE HOME TO
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
``(a) Deduction Allowed.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be allowed as a deduction
for the taxable year an amount equal to the applicable amount
multiplied by the number of qualified family members of the
taxpayer for the taxable year.
``(2) Applicable amount.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the applicable amount for a taxable year shall be the amount
determined in accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in: amount is:
2001..................................................$3,000 .
2002..................................................$4,000 .
2003..................................................$5,000 .
2004..................................................$6,000 .
2005..................................................$7,000 .
2006..................................................$8,000 .
2007..................................................$9,000 .
2008 and thereafter..................................$10,000..
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Reduction for amounts received under long-term care
insurance policy.--The amount of the deduction allowable
under subsection (a) with respect to a qualified family
member shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount
received for the taxable year under a long-term care
insurance policy (whether or not such policy is a qualified
long-term care insurance contract under section 7702B) with
respect to which the insured is the qualified family member.
``(2) Phaseout.--The amount of the deduction allowable
under subsection (a) (after the application of paragraph (1))
shall be reduced in the
[[Page 24397]]
same manner as the exemption amount is reduced under section
151(d)(3).
``(c) Qualified family member.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified family member'
means, with respect to any taxable year, any individual--
``(A) who is--
``(i) the taxpayer's spouse, or
``(ii) an individual who bears a relationship to the
taxpayer described in any of paragraphs (1) through (8) of
section 152(a),
``(B) who is a member for the entire taxable year of the
household maintained by the taxpayer,
``(C) whose gross income for the calendar year in which the
taxable year of the taxpayer begins is less than the sum of--
``(i) the exemption amount (as defined in section 151(d)),
and
``(ii) the standard deduction, and
``(D) who has been certified, before the due date for
filing the return of tax for the taxable year (without
extensions), by a physician (as defined in section 1861(r)(1)
of the Social Security Act) as being an individual described
in paragraph (3) for a period--
``(i) which is at least 180 consecutive days, and
``(ii) a portion of which occurs within the taxable year.
``(2) Special rules.--
``(A) Frequency of certification.--The term `qualified
family member' shall not include any individual otherwise
meeting the requirements of paragraph (1)(D) unless the
certification is made within the 39\1/2\ month period ending
on the due date (or such other period as the Secretary
prescribes).
``(B) Gross income test not to apply to certain
individuals.--Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to--
``(i) the spouse of the taxpayer,
``(ii) any child of the taxpayer described in section
151(c)(1)(B), and
``(iii) any gross income which is not taken into account
under paragraph (1)(B) of section 151(c) by reason of
paragraph (5) thereof.
``(3) Individuals with long-term care needs.--An individual
is described in this paragraph if the individual meets any of
the following requirements:
``(A) The individual is at least 6 years of age and--
``(i) is unable to perform (without substantial assistance
from another individual) at least 3 activities of daily
living (as defined in section 7702B(c)(2)(B)) due to a loss
of functional capacity, or
``(ii) requires substantial supervision to protect such
individual from threats to health and safety due to severe
cognitive impairment, and
``(I) is unable to perform, without reminding or cuing
assistance, at least 1 activity of daily living (as so
defined), or
``(II) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by
the Secretary (in consultation with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services), is unable to engage in age appropriate
activities.
``(B) The individual is at least 2 but not 6 years of age
and is unable due to a loss of functional capacity to perform
(without substantial assistance from another individual) at
least 2 of the following activities: eating, transferring, or
mobility.
``(C) The individual is under 2 years of age and requires
specific durable medical equipment by reason of a severe
health condition or requires a skilled practitioner trained
to address the individual's condition to be available if the
individual's parents or guardians are absent.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Identification requirement.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this section to a taxpayer with respect to any
qualified family member unless the taxpayer includes the name
and taxpayer identification number of such member, and the
identification number of the physician certifying such
member, on the return of tax for the taxable year.
``(2) Taxable year must be full taxable year.--No deduction
shall be allowable under this section in the case of a
taxable year covering a period of less than 12 months, except
that in the case of a taxable year closed by the death of a
taxpayer a ratable portion of the deduction shall be
allowable.
``(3) Special rules.--Rules similar to the rules of
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 21(e) shall
apply for purposes of this subsection.''.
(b) Deduction Allowable Whether or Not Taxpayer Itemizes
Other Deductions.--
(1) Subsection (b) of section 63 is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``, and'', and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) the deduction allowed by section 223.''
(2) Subsection (d) of section 63 is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``, and'', and by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) the deduction allowed by section 223.''
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 6213(g)(2) is amended by striking ``and'' at
the end of subparagraph (K), by striking the period at the
end of subparagraph (L) and inserting ``, and'', and by
inserting after subparagraph (L) the following new
subparagraph:
``(M) an omission of a correct TIN or physician
identification number required under section 223(d)(1)
(relating to deduction for provision of long-term care in the
home to household members) to be included on a return.''
(2) The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the last item and inserting
the following new items:
``Sec. 223. Provision of long-term care in the home to household
members.
``Sec. 224. Cross reference.''
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
TITLE IV--PENSION AND INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENT PROVISIONS
SEC. 400. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Retirement Savings and
Pension Coverage Act of 2000''.
Subtitle A--Individual Retirement Accounts
SEC. 401. MODIFICATION OF IRA CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.
(a) Increase in Contribution Limit.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1)(A) of section 219(b)
(relating to maximum amount of deduction) is amended by
striking ``$2,000'' and inserting ``the deductible amount''.
(2) Deductible amount.--Section 219(b) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Deductible amount.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)(A)--
``(A) In general.--The deductible amount shall be
determined in accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The deductible
beginning in: amount is:
2001..................................................$3,000 .
2002..................................................$4,000 .
2003 and thereafter...................................$5,000..
``(B) Catch-up contributions for individuals 50 or older.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of an individual who has
attained the age of 50 before the close of the taxable year,
the deductible amount for such taxable year (determined
without regard to this subparagraph) shall be increased by
the applicable catch-up amount.
``(ii) Applicable catch-up amount.--For purposes of clause
(i), the applicable catch-up amount shall be the amount
determined in accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The applicable catch-up
beginning in: amount is:
2001....................................................$500 .
2002..................................................$1,000 .
2003 and thereafter...................................$1,500..
``(C) Cost-of-living adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning in a calendar year after 2003, the $5,000 amount
under subparagraph (A) and the $1,500 amount under
subparagraph (B) shall each be increased by an amount equal
to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2002'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(ii) Rounding rules.--If any amount after adjustment
under clause (i) is not a multiple of $500, such amount shall
be rounded to the next lower multiple of $500.''.
(b) Increase in AGI Limits for Active Participants.--
(1) Joint returns.--The table in clause (i) of section
219(g)(3)(B) (relating to applicable dollar amount) is
amended to read as follows:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in dollar amount:
calendar year:
2001.....................................................$56,000
2002.....................................................$60,000
2003.....................................................$64,000
2004.....................................................$68,000
2005.....................................................$72,000
2006.....................................................$76,000
2007 or thereafter....................................$80,000.''.
(2) Other taxpayers.--Section 219(g)(3)(B) (relating to
applicable dollar amount) is amended by striking clauses (ii)
and (iii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) In the case of any other taxpayer:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in dollar amount:
calendar year:
2001.....................................................$36,000
2002.....................................................$40,000
2003.....................................................$44,000
2004.....................................................$48,000
2005 or thereafter....................................$50,000.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 408(a)(1) is amended by striking ``in excess of
$2,000 on behalf of any individual'' and inserting ``on
behalf of any individual in excess of the amount in effect
for such taxable year under section 219(b)(1)(A)''.
(2) Section 408(b)(2)(B) is amended by striking ``$2,000''
and inserting ``the dollar amount in effect under section
219(b)(1)(A)''.
(3) Section 408(b) is amended by striking ``$2,000'' in the
matter following paragraph (4) and inserting ``the dollar
amount in effect under section 219(b)(1)(A)''.
(4) Section 408(j) is amended by striking ``$2,000''.
(5) Section 408(p)(8) is amended by striking ``$2,000'' and
inserting ``the dollar amount in effect under section
219(b)(1)(A)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 402. DEEMED IRAS UNDER EMPLOYER PLANS.
(a) In General.--Section 408 (relating to individual
retirement accounts) is amended by redesignating subsection
(q) as subsection (r) and
[[Page 24398]]
by inserting after subsection (p) the following new
subsection:
``(q) Deemed IRAs Under Qualified Employer Plans.--
``(1) General rule.--If--
``(A) a qualified employer plan elects to allow employees
to make voluntary employee contributions to a separate
account or annuity established under the plan, and
``(B) under the terms of the qualified employer plan, such
account or annuity meets the applicable requirements of this
section or section 408A for an individual retirement account
or annuity,
then such account or annuity shall be treated for purposes of
this title in the same manner as an individual retirement
plan and not as a qualified employer plan (and contributions
to such account or annuity as contributions to an individual
retirement plan and not to the qualified employer plan). For
purposes of subparagraph (B), the requirements of subsection
(a)(5) shall not apply.
``(2) Special rules for qualified employer plans.--For
purposes of this title, a qualified employer plan shall not
fail to meet any requirement of this title solely by reason
of establishing and maintaining a program described in
paragraph (1).
``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Qualified employer plan.--The term `qualified
employer plan' has the meaning given such term by section
72(p)(4); except such term shall only include an eligible
deferred compensation plan (as defined in section 457(b))
which is maintained by an eligible employer described in
section 457(e)(1)(A).
``(B) Voluntary employee contribution.--The term `voluntary
employee contribution' means any contribution (other than a
mandatory contribution within the meaning of section
411(c)(2)(C))--
``(i) which is made by an individual as an employee under a
qualified employer plan which allows employees to elect to
make contributions described in paragraph (1), and
``(ii) with respect to which the individual has designated
the contribution as a contribution to which this subsection
applies.''.
(b) Amendment of ERISA.--
(1) In general.--Section 4 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1003) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) If a pension plan allows an employee to elect to make
voluntary employee contributions to accounts and annuities as
provided in section 408(q) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, such accounts and annuities (and contributions thereto)
shall not be treated as part of such plan (or as a separate
pension plan) for purposes of any provision of this title
other than section 403(c), 404, or 405 (relating to exclusive
benefit, and fiduciary and co-fiduciary responsibilities).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 4(a) of such Act (29
U.S.C. 1003(a)) is amended by inserting ``or (c)'' after
``subsection (b)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2001.
SEC. 403. TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
ACCOUNTS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 408 (relating to
individual retirement accounts) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Distributions for charitable purposes.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a qualified charitable
distribution, no amount shall be includible in the gross
income of the account holder or beneficiary.
``(B) Qualified charitable distribution.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `qualified charitable distribution'
means any distribution from an individual retirement
account--
``(i) which is made on or after the date that the
individual for whose benefit the account is maintained has
attained age 70\1/2\, and
``(ii) which is a charitable contribution (as defined in
section 170(c)) made directly from the account to an
organization or entity described in section 170(c).
``(C) Denial of deduction.--The amount allowable as a
deduction to the taxpayer for the taxable year under section
170 (before the application of section 170(b)) for qualified
charitable distributions shall be reduced (but not below
zero) by the sum of the amounts of the qualified charitable
distributions during such year which (but for this paragraph)
would have been includible in the gross income of the
taxpayer for such year.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 404. MODIFICATION OF AGI LIMITS FOR ROTH IRAS.
(a) Increase in AGI Limit for Roth IRA Contributions.--
(1) In general.--Section 408A(c)(3)(C)(ii) (relating to
limits based on modified adjusted gross income) is amended to
read as follows:
``(ii) the applicable dollar amount is--
``(I) in the case of a taxpayer filing a joint return,
$190,000, and
``(II) in the case of any other taxpayer, $95,000.''.
(2) Phaseout amount.--Clause (ii) of section 408A(c)(3)(A)
is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) $15,000 ($30,000 in the case of a joint return).''.
(b) Increase in AGI Limit for Roth IRA Conversions.--
Section 408A(c)(3)(B) (relating to rollover from IRA) is
amended by striking ``relates'' and all that follows and
inserting ``relates, the taxpayer's adjusted gross income
exceeds $100,000 ($200,000 in the case of a joint return).''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 408A(c)(3) is amended by
striking subparagraph (D).
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
Subtitle B--Expanding Coverage
SEC. 411. INCREASE IN BENEFIT AND CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.
(a) Defined Benefit Plans.--
(1) Dollar limit.--
(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 415(b)(1) (relating to
limitation for defined benefit plans) is amended by striking
``$90,000'' and inserting ``$160,000''.
(B) Subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 415(b)(2) are each
amended by striking ``$90,000'' each place it appears in the
headings and the text and inserting ``$160,000''.
(C) Paragraph (7) of section 415(b) (relating to benefits
under certain collectively bargained plans) is amended by
striking ``the greater of $68,212 or one-half the amount
otherwise applicable for such year under paragraph (1)(A) for
`$90,000' '' and inserting ``one-half the amount otherwise
applicable for such year under paragraph (1)(A) for
`$160,000' ''.
(2) Limit reduced when benefit begins before age 62.--
Subparagraph (C) of section 415(b)(2) is amended by striking
``the social security retirement age'' each place it appears
in the heading and text and inserting ``age 62'' and by
striking the second sentence.
(3) Limit increased when benefit begins after age 65.--
Subparagraph (D) of section 415(b)(2) is amended by striking
``the social security retirement age'' each place it appears
in the heading and text and inserting ``age 65''.
(4) Cost-of-living adjustments.--Subsection (d) of section
415 (related to cost-of-living adjustments) is amended--
(A) by striking ``$90,000'' in paragraph (1)(A) and
inserting ``$160,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(A)--
(i) by striking ``$90,000'' in the heading and inserting
``$160,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``October 1, 1986'' and inserting ``July
1, 2000''.
(5) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 415(b)(2) is amended by striking subparagraph
(F).
(B) Section 415(b)(9) is amended to read as follows:
``(9) Special rule for commercial airline pilots.--In the
case of any participant who is a commercial airline pilot,
if, as of the time of the participant's retirement,
regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration
require an individual to separate from service as a
commercial airline pilot after attaining any age occurring on
or after age 60 and before age 62, paragraph (2)(C) shall be
applied by substituting such age for age 62.''.
(C) Section 415(b)(10)(C)(i) is amended by striking
``applied without regard to paragraph (2)(F)''.
(b) Defined Contribution Plans.--
(1) Dollar limit.--Subparagraph (A) of section 415(c)(1)
(relating to limitation for defined contribution plans) is
amended by striking ``$30,000'' and inserting ``$40,000''.
(2) Cost-of-living adjustments.--Subsection (d) of section
415 (related to cost-of-living adjustments) is amended--
(A) by striking ``$30,000'' in paragraph (1)(C) and
inserting ``$40,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(D)--
(i) by striking ``$30,000'' in the heading and inserting
``$40,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``October 1, 1993'' and inserting ``July
1, 2000''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) In general.--Section 664(g)(3)(E) (relating to plan
requirements) is amended by striking ``limitations under
section 415(c)(1)`` and inserting ``applicable limitation
under paragraph (7)''.
(B) Applicable limitation.--Section 664(g) (relating to
qualified gratuitous transfer of qualified employer
securities) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(7) Applicable limitation.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (3)(E), the
applicable limitation under this paragraph with respect to a
participant is an amount equal to the lesser of--
``(i) $30,000, or
``(ii) 25 percent of the participant's compensation (as
defined in section 415(c)(3)).
``(B) Cost-of-living adjustment.--The Secretary shall
adjust annually the $30,000 amount under subparagraph (A)(i)
at the same time and in the same manner as under section
415(d), except that the base period shall be the calendar
quarter beginning October 1, 1993, and any increase under
this subparagraph which is not a multiple of $5,000 shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000.''.
(c) Qualified Trusts.--
(1) Compensation limit.--Sections 401(a)(17), 404(l),
408(k), and 505(b)(7) are each amended by striking
``$150,000'' each place it appears and inserting
``$200,000''.
(2) Base period and rounding of cost-of-living
adjustment.--Subparagraph (B) of section 401(a)(17) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``October 1, 1993'' and inserting ``July 1,
2000''; and
(B) by striking ``$10,000'' both places it appears and
inserting ``$5,000''.
(d) Elective Deferrals.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 402(g) (relating
to limitation on exclusion for elective deferrals) is amended
to read as follows:
[[Page 24399]]
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsections (e)(3) and
(h)(1)(B), the elective deferrals of any individual for any
taxable year shall be included in such individual's gross
income to the extent the amount of such deferrals for the
taxable year exceeds the applicable dollar amount.
``(B) Applicable dollar amount.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the applicable dollar amount shall be the
amount determined in accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in dollar amount:
calendar year:
2001.....................................................$11,000
2002.....................................................$12,000
2003.....................................................$13,000
2004.....................................................$14,000
2005 or thereafter....................................$15,000.''.
(2) Cost-of-living adjustment.--Paragraph (5) of section
402(g) is amended to read as follows:
``(5) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall
adjust the $15,000 amount under paragraph (1)(B) at the same
time and in the same manner as under section 415(d), except
that the base period shall be the calendar quarter beginning
July 1, 2004, and any increase under this paragraph which is
not a multiple of $500 shall be rounded to the next lowest
multiple of $500.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 402(g) (relating to limitation on exclusion for
elective deferrals), as amended by paragraphs (1) and (2), is
further amended by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating
paragraphs (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) as paragraphs (4),
(5), (6), (7), and (8), respectively.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 457(c) is amended by striking
``402(g)(8)(A)(iii)'' and inserting ``402(g)(7)(A)(iii)''.
(C) Clause (iii) of section 501(c)(18)(D) is amended by
striking ``(other than paragraph (4) thereof)''.
(e) Deferred Compensation Plans of State and Local
Governments and Tax-Exempt Organizations.--
(1) In general.--Section 457 (relating to deferred
compensation plans of State and local governments and tax-
exempt organizations) is amended--
(A) in subsections (b)(2)(A) and (c)(1) by striking
``$7,500'' each place it appears and inserting ``the
applicable dollar amount''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(3)(A) by striking ``$15,000'' and
inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under
subsection (b)(2)(A)''.
(2) Applicable dollar amount; cost-of-living adjustment.--
Paragraph (15) of section 457(e) is amended to read as
follows:
``(15) Applicable dollar amount.--
``(A) In general.--The applicable dollar amount shall be
the amount determined in accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in dollar amount:
calendar year:
2001.....................................................$11,000
2002.....................................................$12,000
2003.....................................................$13,000
2004.....................................................$14,000
2005 or thereafter.......................................$15,000.
``(B) Cost-of-living adjustments.--In the case of taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall
adjust the $15,000 amount under subparagraph (A) at the same
time and in the same manner as under section 415(d), except
that the base period shall be the calendar quarter beginning
July 1, 2004, and any increase under this paragraph which is
not a multiple of $500 shall be rounded to the next lowest
multiple of $500.''.
(f) Simple Retirement Accounts.--
(1) Limitation.--Clause (ii) of section 408(p)(2)(A)
(relating to general rule for qualified salary reduction
arrangement) is amended by striking ``$6,000'' and inserting
``the applicable dollar amount''.
(2) Applicable dollar amount.--Subparagraph (E) of
408(p)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(E) Applicable dollar amount; cost-of-living
adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii),
the applicable dollar amount shall be the amount determined
in accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in dollar amount:
calendar year:
2001....................................................$7,000
2002....................................................$8,000
2003....................................................$9,000
2004 or thereafter.....................................$10,000.
``(ii) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of a year
beginning after December 31, 2004, the Secretary shall adjust
the $10,000 amount under clause (i) at the same time and in
the same manner as under section 415(d), except that the base
period taken into account shall be the calendar quarter
beginning July 1, 2003, and any increase under this
subparagraph which is not a multiple of $500 shall be rounded
to the next lower multiple of $500.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subclause (I) of section 401(k)(11)(B)(i) is amended by
striking ``$6,000'' and inserting ``the amount in effect
under section 408(p)(2)(A)(ii)''.
(B) Section 401(k)(11) is amended by striking subparagraph
(E).
(g) Rounding Rule Relating to Defined Benefit Plans and
Defined Contribution Plans.--Paragraph (4) of section 415(d)
is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Rounding.--
``(A) $160,000 amount.--Any increase under subparagraph (A)
of paragraph (1) which is not a multiple of $5,000 shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000.
``(B) $40,000 amount.--Any increase under subparagraph (C)
of paragraph (1) which is not a multiple of $1,000 shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000.''.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 412. PLAN LOANS FOR SUBCHAPTER S OWNERS, PARTNERS, AND
SOLE PROPRIETORS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4975(f)(6)
(relating to exemptions not to apply to certain transactions)
is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Loan exception.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(i), the term `owner-employee' shall only include a person
described in subclause (II) or (III) of clause (i).''.
(b) Amendment of ERISA.--Section 408(d)(2) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1108(d)(2))
is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the term `owner-
employee' shall only include a person described in clause
(ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 413. MODIFICATION OF TOP-HEAVY RULES.
(a) Simplification of Definition of Key Employee.--
(1) In general.--Section 416(i)(1)(A) (defining key
employee) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or any of the 4 preceding plan years'' in
the matter preceding clause (i);
(B) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) an officer of the employer having an annual
compensation greater than $115,000,'';
(C) by striking clause (ii) and redesignating clauses (iii)
and (iv) as clauses (ii) and (iii), respectively; and
(D) by striking the second sentence in the matter following
clause (iii), as redesignated by subparagraph (C).
(2) Cost-of-living adjustment.--Section 416(i)(1) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of a year
beginning after December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall adjust
the $115,000 amount under subparagraph (A)(i) at the same
time and in the same manner as under section 415(d), except
that the base period taken into account shall be the calendar
quarter beginning July 1, 2000, and any increase under this
subparagraph which is not a multiple of $5,000 shall be
rounded to the next lower multiple of $5,000.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 416(i)(1)(B)(iii) is
amended by striking ``and subparagraph (A)(ii)''.
(b) Matching Contributions Taken Into Account for Minimum
Contribution Requirements.--Section 416(c)(2)(A) (relating to
defined contribution plans) is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``Employer matching contributions (as defined
in section 401(m)(4)(A)) shall be taken into account for
purposes of this subparagraph.''.
(c) Distributions During Last Year Before Determination
Date Taken Into Account.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 416(g) is amended
to read as follows:
``(3) Distributions during last year before determination
date taken into account.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of determining--
``(i) the present value of the cumulative accrued benefit
for any employee, or
``(ii) the amount of the account of any employee,
such present value or amount shall be increased by the
aggregate distributions made with respect to such employee
under the plan during the 1-year period ending on the
determination date. The preceding sentence shall also apply
to distributions under a terminated plan which if it had not
been terminated would have been required to be included in an
aggregation group.
``(B) 5-year period in case of in-service distribution.--In
the case of any distribution made for a reason other than
separation from service, death, or disability, subparagraph
(A) shall be applied by substituting `5-year period' for `1-
year period'.''.
(2) Benefits not taken into account.--Subparagraph (E) of
section 416(g)(4) is amended--
(A) by striking ``last 5 years'' in the heading and
inserting ``last year before determination date''; and
(B) by striking ``5-year period'' and inserting ``1-year
period''.
(d) Definition of Top-Heavy Plans.--Paragraph (4) of
section 416(g) (relating to other special rules for top-heavy
plans) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) Cash or deferred arrangements using alternative
methods of meeting nondiscrimination requirements.--The term
`top-heavy plan' shall not include a plan which consists
solely of--
``(i) a cash or deferred arrangement which meets the
requirements of section 401(k)(12), and
``(ii) matching contributions with respect to which the
requirements of section 401(m)(11) are met.
If, but for this subparagraph, a plan would be treated as a
top-heavy plan because it is a member of an aggregation group
which is a top-heavy group, contributions under the plan may
[[Page 24400]]
be taken into account in determining whether any other plan
in the group meets the requirements of subsection (c)(2).''.
(e) Frozen Plan Exempt From Minimum Benefit Requirement.--
Subparagraph (C) of section 416(c)(1) (relating to defined
benefit plans) is amended--
(A) by striking ``clause (ii)'' in clause (i) and inserting
``clause (ii) or (iii)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Exception for frozen plan.--For purposes of
determining an employee's years of service with the employer,
any service with the employer shall be disregarded to the
extent that such service occurs during a plan year when the
plan benefits (within the meaning of section 410(b)) no key
employee or former key employee.''.
(f) Elimination of Family Attribution.--Section
416(i)(1)(B) (defining 5-percent owner) is amended by adding
at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) Family attribution disregarded.--Solely for purposes
of applying this paragraph (and not for purposes of any
provision of this title which incorporates by reference the
definition of a key employee or 5-percent owner under this
paragraph), section 318 shall be applied without regard to
subsection (a)(1) thereof in determining whether any person
is a 5-percent owner.''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 414. ELECTIVE DEFERRALS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR
PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION LIMITS.
(a) In General.--Section 404 (relating to deduction for
contributions of an employer to an employees' trust or
annuity plan and compensation under a deferred payment plan)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Elective Deferrals Not Taken Into Account for
Purposes of Deduction Limits.--Elective deferrals (as defined
in section 402(g)(3)) shall not be subject to any limitation
contained in paragraph (3), (7), or (9) of subsection (a),
and such elective deferrals shall not be taken into account
in applying any such limitation to any other
contributions.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 415. REPEAL OF COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLANS OF STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 457 (relating to
deferred compensation plans of State and local governments
and tax-exempt organizations), as amended by section 411, is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Limitation.--The maximum amount of the compensation
of any one individual which may be deferred under subsection
(a) during any taxable year shall not exceed the amount in
effect under subsection (b)(2)(A) (as modified by any
adjustment provided under subsection (b)(3)).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 416. ELIMINATION OF USER FEE FOR REQUESTS TO IRS
REGARDING PENSION PLANS.
(a) Elimination of Certain User Fees.--The Secretary of the
Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall not require
payment of user fees under the program established under
section 10511 of the Revenue Act of 1987 for requests to the
Internal Revenue Service for determination letters with
respect to the qualified status of a pension benefit plan
maintained solely by one or more eligible employers or any
trust which is part of the plan. The preceding sentence shall
not apply to any request--
(1) made after the later of--
(A) the fifth plan year the pension benefit plan is in
existence; or
(B) the end of any remedial amendment period with respect
to the plan beginning within the first 5 plan years; or
(2) made by the sponsor of any prototype or similar plan
which the sponsor intends to market to participating
employers.
(b) Pension Benefit Plan.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``pension benefit plan'' means a pension, profit-
sharing, stock bonus, annuity, or employee stock ownership
plan.
(c) Eligible Employer.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``eligible employer'' has the same meaning given such
term in section 408(p)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986. The determination of whether an employer is an
eligible employer under this section shall be made as of the
date of the request described in subsection (a).
(d) Determination of Average Fees Charged.--For purposes of
any determination of average fees charged, any request to
which subsection (a) applies shall not be taken into account.
(e) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
apply with respect to requests made after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 417. DEDUCTION LIMITS.
(a) Modification of Limits.--
(1) Stock bonus and profit sharing trusts.--
(A) In general.--Subclause (I) of section 404(a)(3)(A)(i)
(relating to stock bonus and profit sharing trusts) is
amended by striking ``15 percent'' and inserting ``25
percent''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of section
404(h)(1) is amended by striking ``15 percent'' each place it
appears and inserting ``25 percent''.
(2) Defined contribution plans.--
(A) In general.--Clause (v) of section 404(a)(3)(A)
(relating to stock bonus and profit sharing trusts) is
amended to read as follows:
``(v) Defined contribution plans subject to the funding
standards.--Except as provided by the Secretary, a defined
contribution plan which is subject to the funding standards
of section 412 shall be treated in the same manner as a stock
bonus or profit-sharing plan for purposes of this
subparagraph.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--
(i) Section 404(a)(1)(A) is amended by inserting ``(other
than a trust to which paragraph (3) applies)'' after
``pension trust''.
(ii) Section 404(h)(2) is amended by striking ``stock bonus
or profit-sharing trust'' and inserting ``trust subject to
subsection (a)(3)(A)''.
(iii) The heading of section 404(h)(2) is amended by
striking ``stock bonus and profit-sharing trust'' and
inserting ``certain trusts''.
(b) Compensation.--
(1) In general.--Section 404(a) (relating to general rule)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Definition of compensation.--For purposes of
paragraphs (3), (7), (8), and (9), the term `compensation'
shall include amounts treated as participant's compensation
under subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 415(c)(3).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (B) of section 404(a)(3) is amended by
striking the last sentence thereof.
(B) Clause (i) of section 4972(c)(6)(B) is amended by
striking ``(within the meaning of section 404(a))'' and
inserting ``(within the meaning of section 404(a) and as
adjusted under section 404(a)(12))''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 418. OPTION TO TREAT ELECTIVE DEFERRALS AS AFTER-TAX
ROTH CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part I of subchapter D of
chapter 1 (relating to deferred compensation, etc.) is
amended by inserting after section 402 the following new
section:
``SEC. 402A. OPTIONAL TREATMENT OF ELECTIVE DEFERRALS AS ROTH
CONTRIBUTIONS.
``(a) General Rule.--If an applicable retirement plan
includes a qualified Roth contribution program--
``(1) any designated Roth contribution made by an employee
pursuant to the program shall be treated as an elective
deferral for purposes of this chapter, except that such
contribution shall not be excludable from gross income, and
``(2) such plan (and any arrangement which is part of such
plan) shall not be treated as failing to meet any requirement
of this chapter solely by reason of including such program.
``(b) Qualified Roth Contribution Program.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified Roth contribution
program' means a program under which an employee may elect to
make designated Roth contributions in lieu of all or a
portion of elective deferrals the employee is otherwise
eligible to make under the applicable retirement plan.
``(2) Separate accounting required.--A program shall not be
treated as a qualified Roth contribution program unless the
applicable retirement plan--
``(A) establishes separate accounts (`designated Roth
accounts') for the designated Roth contributions of each
employee and any earnings properly allocable to the
contributions, and
``(B) maintains separate recordkeeping with respect to each
account.
``(c) Definitions and Rules Relating to Designated Roth
Contributions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Designated Roth contribution.--The term `designated
Roth contribution' means any elective deferral which--
``(A) is excludable from gross income of an employee
without regard to this section, and
``(B) the employee designates (at such time and in such
manner as the Secretary may prescribe) as not being so
excludable.
``(2) Designation limits.--The amount of elective deferrals
which an employee may designate under paragraph (1) shall not
exceed the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the maximum amount of elective deferrals excludable
from gross income of the employee for the taxable year
(without regard to this section), over
``(B) the aggregate amount of elective deferrals of the
employee for the taxable year which the employee does not
designate under paragraph (1).
``(3) Rollover contributions.--
``(A) In general.--A rollover contribution of any payment
or distribution from a designated Roth account which is
otherwise allowable under this chapter may be made only if
the contribution is to--
``(i) another designated Roth account of the individual
from whose account the payment or distribution was made, or
``(ii) a Roth IRA of such individual.
``(B) Coordination with limit.--Any rollover contribution
to a designated Roth account under subparagraph (A) shall not
be taken into account for purposes of paragraph (1).
``(d) Distribution Rules.--For purposes of this title--
``(1) Exclusion.--Any qualified distribution from a
designated Roth account shall not be includible in gross
income.
``(2) Qualified distribution.--For purposes of this
subsection--
[[Page 24401]]
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified distribution' has
the meaning given such term by section 408A(d)(2)(A) (without
regard to clause (iv) thereof).
``(B) Distributions within nonexclusion period.--A payment
or distribution from a designated Roth account shall not be
treated as a qualified distribution if such payment or
distribution is made within the 5-taxable-year period
beginning with the earlier of--
``(i) the first taxable year for which the individual made
a designated Roth contribution to any designated Roth account
established for such individual under the same applicable
retirement plan, or
``(ii) if a rollover contribution was made to such
designated Roth account from a designated Roth account
previously established for such individual under another
applicable retirement plan, the first taxable year for which
the individual made a designated Roth contribution to such
previously established account.
``(C) Distributions of excess deferrals and contributions
and earnings thereon.--The term `qualified distribution'
shall not include any distribution of any excess deferral
under section 402(g)(2) or any excess contribution under
section 401(k)(8), and any income on the excess deferral or
contribution.
``(3) Treatment of distributions of certain excess
deferrals.--Notwithstanding section 72, if any excess
deferral under section 402(g)(2) attributable to a designated
Roth contribution is not distributed on or before the 1st
April 15 following the close of the taxable year in which
such excess deferral is made, the amount of such excess
deferral shall--
``(A) not be treated as investment in the contract, and
``(B) be included in gross income for the taxable year in
which such excess is distributed.
``(4) Aggregation rules.--Section 72 shall be applied
separately with respect to distributions and payments from a
designated Roth account and other distributions and payments
from the plan.
``(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Applicable retirement plan.--The term `applicable
retirement plan' means--
``(A) an employees' trust described in section 401(a) which
is exempt from tax under section 501(a), and
``(B) a plan under which amounts are contributed by an
individual's employer for an annuity contract described in
section 403(b).
``(2) Elective deferral.--The term `elective deferral'
means any elective deferral described in subparagraph (A) or
(C) of section 402(g)(3).''.
(b) Excess Deferrals.--Section 402(g) (relating to
limitation on exclusion for elective deferrals) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of paragraph (1)(A) (as added by
section 201(d)(1)) the following new sentence: ``The
preceding sentence shall not apply to the portion of such
excess as does not exceed the designated Roth contributions
of the individual for the taxable year.''; and
(2) by inserting ``(or would be included but for the last
sentence thereof)'' after ``paragraph (1)'' in paragraph
(2)(A).
(c) Rollovers.--Subparagraph (B) of section 402(c)(8) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``If any portion of an eligible rollover distribution is
attributable to payments or distributions from a designated
Roth account (as defined in section 402A), an eligible
retirement plan with respect to such portion shall include
only another designated Roth account and a Roth IRA.''.
(d) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) W-2 information.--Section 6051(a)(8) is amended by
inserting ``, including the amount of designated Roth
contributions (as defined in section 402A)'' before the comma
at the end.
(2) Information.--Section 6047 is amended by redesignating
subsection (f) as subsection (g) and by inserting after
subsection (e) the following new subsection:
``(f) Designated Roth Contributions.--The Secretary shall
require the plan administrator of each applicable retirement
plan (as defined in section 402A) to make such returns and
reports regarding designated Roth contributions (as defined
in section 402A) to the Secretary, participants and
beneficiaries of the plan, and such other persons as the
Secretary may prescribe.''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 408A(e) is amended by adding after the first
sentence the following new sentence: ``Such term includes a
rollover contribution described in section 402A(c)(3)(A).''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart A of part I of
subchapter D of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 402 the following new item:
``Sec. 402A. Optional treatment of elective deferrals as Roth
contributions.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
Subtitle C--Enhancing Fairness For Women
SEC. 421. CATCH-UP CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS AGE 50 OR
OVER.
(a) In General.--Section 414 (relating to definitions and
special rules) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(v) Catch-up Contributions for Individuals Age 50 or
Over.--
``(1) In general.--An applicable employer plan shall not be
treated as failing to meet any requirement of this title
solely because the plan permits an eligible participant to
make additional elective deferrals in any plan year.
``(2) Limitation on amount of additional deferrals.--
``(A) In general.--A plan shall not permit additional
elective deferrals under paragraph (1) for any year in an
amount greater than the lesser of--
``(i) the applicable deferral amount, or
``(ii) the excess (if any) of--
``(I) the participant's compensation for the year, over
``(II) any other elective deferrals of the participant for
such year which are made without regard to this subsection.
``(B) Applicable deferral amount; cost-of-living
adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), the
applicable deferral amount shall be the amount determined in
accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in deferral amount:
calendar year:
2001....................................................$1,000
2002....................................................$2,000
2003....................................................$3,000
2004....................................................$4,000
2005 or thereafter......................................$5,000.
``(ii) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of a year
beginning after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall adjust
the $5,000 amount under clause (i) at the same time and in
the same manner as under section 415(d), except that the base
period taken into account shall be the calendar quarter
beginning July 1, 2004, and any increase under this
subparagraph which is not a multiple of $500 shall be rounded
to the next lower multiple of $500.
``(3) Treatment of contributions.--In the case of any
contribution to a plan under paragraph (1), such contribution
shall not, with respect to the year in which the contribution
is made--
``(A) be subject to any otherwise applicable limitation
contained in section 402(g), 402(h)(2), 404(a), 404(h),
408(p)(2)(A)(ii), 415, or 457, or
``(B) be taken into account in applying such limitations to
other contributions or benefits under such plan or any other
such plan.
``(4) Application of nondiscrimination rules.--
``(A) In general.--An applicable employer plan shall not be
treated as failing to meet the nondiscrimination requirements
under section 401(a)(4) with respect to benefits, rights, and
features if the plan allows all eligible participants to make
the same election with respect to the additional elective
deferrals under this subsection.
``(B) Aggregation.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), all
plans maintained by employers who are treated as a single
employer under subsection (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section
414 shall be treated as 1 plan.
``(5) Eligible participant.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `eligible participant' means, with
respect to any plan year, a participant in a plan--
``(A) who has attained the age of 50 before the close of
the plan year, and
``(B) with respect to whom no other elective deferrals may
(without regard to this subsection) be made to the plan for
the plan year by reason of the application of any limitation
or other restriction described in paragraph (3) or any
comparable limitation contained in the terms of the plan.
``(6) Other definitions and rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) Applicable employer plan.--The term `applicable
employer plan' means--
``(i) an employees' trust described in section 401(a) which
is exempt from tax under section 501(a),
``(ii) a plan under which amounts are contributed by an
individual's employer for an annuity contract described in
section 403(b),
``(iii) an eligible deferred compensation plan under
section 457 of an eligible employer as defined in section
457(e)(1)(A), and
``(iv) an arrangement meeting the requirements of section
408 (k) or (p).
``(B) Elective deferral.--The term `elective deferral' has
the meaning given such term by subsection (u)(2)(C).
``(C) Exception for section 457 plans.--This subsection
shall not apply to an applicable employer plan described in
subparagraph (A)(iii) for any year to which section 457(b)(3)
applies.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2000.
SEC. 422. EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF EMPLOYEES
TO DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLANS.
(a) Equitable Treatment.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 415(c)(1)
(relating to limitation for defined contribution plans) is
amended by striking ``25 percent'' and inserting ``100
percent''.
(2) Application to section 403(b).--Section 403(b) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``the exclusion allowance for such taxable
year'' in paragraph (1) and inserting ``the applicable limit
under section 415'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(C) by inserting ``or any amount received by a former
employee after the fifth taxable year following the taxable
year in which such employee was terminated'' before the
period at the end of the second sentence of paragraph (3).
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subsection (f) of section 72 is amended by striking
``section 403(b)(2)(D)(iii))'' and inserting ``section
403(b)(2)(D)(iii), as in effect before the enactment of the
Retirement Savings and Pension Coverage Act of 2000)''.
[[Page 24402]]
(B) Section 404(a)(10)(B) is amended by striking ``, the
exclusion allowance under section 403(b)(2),''.
(C) Section 415(a)(2) is amended by striking ``, and the
amount of the contribution for such portion shall reduce the
exclusion allowance as provided in section 403(b)(2)''.
(D) Section 415(c)(3) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(E) Annuity contracts.--In the case of an annuity
contract described in section 403(b), the term `participant's
compensation' means the participant's includible compensation
determined under section 403(b)(3).''.
(E) Section 415(c) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
(F) Section 415(c)(7) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) Certain contributions by church plans not treated as
exceeding limit.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, at the election of a participant who is an
employee of a church or a convention or association of
churches, including an organization described in section
414(e)(3)(B)(ii), contributions and other additions for an
annuity contract or retirement income account described in
section 403(b) with respect to such participant, when
expressed as an annual addition to such participant's
account, shall be treated as not exceeding the limitation of
paragraph (1) if such annual addition is not in excess of
$10,000.
``(B) $40,000 aggregate limitation.--The total amount of
additions with respect to any participant which may be taken
into account for purposes of this subparagraph for all years
may not exceed $40,000.
``(C) Annual addition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
term `annual addition' has the meaning given such term by
paragraph (2).''.
(G) Subparagraph (B) of section 402(g)(7) (as redesignated
by section 201(d)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end the following: ``(as in effect before the
enactment of the Retirement Savings and Pension Coverage Act
of 2000)''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(b) Special Rules for Sections 403(b) and 408.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (k) of section 415 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Special rules for sections 403(b) and 408.--For
purposes of this section, any annuity contract described in
section 403(b) for the benefit of a participant shall be
treated as a defined contribution plan maintained by each
employer with respect to which the participant has the
control required under subsection (b) or (c) of section 414
(as modified by subsection (h)). For purposes of this
section, any contribution by an employer to a simplified
employee pension plan for an individual for a taxable year
shall be treated as an employer contribution to a defined
contribution plan for such individual for such year.''.
(2) Effective date.--
(A) In general.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall
apply to limitation years beginning after December 31, 1999.
(B) Exclusion allowance.--Effective for limitation years
beginning in 2000, in the case of any annuity contract
described in section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, the amount of the contribution disqualified by reason
of section 415(g) of such Code shall reduce the exclusion
allowance as provided in section 403(b)(2) of such Code.
(3) Modification of 403(b) exclusion allowance to conform
to 415 modification.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
modify the regulations regarding the exclusion allowance
under section 403(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to render void the requirement that contributions to a
defined benefit pension plan be treated as previously
excluded amounts for purposes of the exclusion allowance. For
taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999, such
regulations shall be applied as if such requirement were
void.
(c) Deferred Compensation Plans of State and Local
Governments and Tax-Exempt Organizations.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 457(b)(2)
(relating to salary limitation on eligible deferred
compensation plans) is amended by striking ``33\1/3\
percent'' and inserting ``100 percent''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 423. FASTER VESTING OF CERTAIN EMPLOYER MATCHING
CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 411(a) (relating to minimum
vesting standards) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``A plan'' and inserting
``Except as provided in paragraph (12), a plan''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Faster vesting for matching contributions.--In the
case of matching contributions (as defined in section
401(m)(4)(A)), paragraph (2) shall be applied--
``(A) by substituting `3 years' for `5 years' in
subparagraph (A), and
``(B) by substituting the following table for the table
contained in subparagraph (B):
The nonforfeitable
``Years of service: percentage is:
2............................................................20
3............................................................40
4............................................................60
5............................................................80
6.........................................................100.''.
(b) Amendment of ERISA.--Section 203(a) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1053(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``A plan'' and inserting
``Except as provided in paragraph (4), a plan'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) In the case of matching contributions (as defined in
section 401(m)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986),
paragraph (2) shall be applied--
``(A) by substituting `3 years' for `5 years' in
subparagraph (A), and
``(B) by substituting the following table for the table
contained in subparagraph (B):
The nonforfeitable
``Years of service: percentage is:
2............................................................20
3............................................................40
4............................................................60
5............................................................80
6.........................................................100.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to contributions
for plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(2) Collective bargaining agreements.--In the case of a
plan maintained pursuant to one or more collective bargaining
agreements between employee representatives and one or more
employers ratified by the date of the enactment of this Act,
the amendments made by this section shall not apply to
contributions on behalf of employees covered by any such
agreement for plan years beginning before the earlier of--
(A) the later of--
(i) the date on which the last of such collective
bargaining agreements terminates (determined without regard
to any extension thereof on or after such date of the
enactment); or
(ii) January 1, 2001; or
(B) January 1, 2005.
(3) Service required.--With respect to any plan, the
amendments made by this section shall not apply to any
employee before the date that such employee has 1 hour of
service under such plan in any plan year to which the
amendments made by this section apply.
SEC. 424. SIMPLIFY AND UPDATE THE MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION RULES.
(a) Simplification and Finalization of Minimum Distribution
Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall--
(A) simplify and finalize the regulations relating to
minimum distribution requirements under sections 401(a)(9),
408(a)(6) and (b)(3), 403(b)(10), and 457(d)(2) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(B) modify such regulations to--
(i) reflect current life expectancy; and
(ii) revise the required distribution methods so that,
under reasonable assumptions, the amount of the required
minimum distribution does not decrease over a participant's
life expectancy.
(2) Fresh start.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (D) of
section 401(a)(9) of such Code, during the first year that
regulations are in effect under this subsection, required
distributions for future years may be redetermined to reflect
changes under such regulations. Such redetermination shall
include the opportunity to choose a new designated
beneficiary and to elect a new method of calculating life
expectancy.
(3) Date for regulations.--Not later than December 31,
2001, the Secretary shall issue final regulations described
in paragraph (1) and such regulations shall apply without
regard to whether an individual had previously begun
receiving minimum distributions.
(b) Repeal of Rule Where Distributions Had Begun Before
Death Occurs.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 401(a)(9) is
amended by striking clause (i) and redesignating clauses
(ii), (iii), and (iv) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii),
respectively.
(2) Conforming changes.--
(A) Clause (i) of section 401(a)(9)(B) (as so redesignated)
is amended--
(i) by striking ``for other cases'' in the heading; and
(ii) by striking ``the distribution of the employee's
interest has begun in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii)''
and inserting ``his entire interest has been distributed to
him''.
(B) Clause (ii) of section 401(a)(9)(B) (as so
redesignated) is amended by striking ``clause (ii)'' and
inserting ``clause (i)''.
(C) Clause (iii) of section 401(a)(9)(B) (as so
redesignated) is amended--
(i) by striking ``clause (iii)(I)'' and inserting ``clause
(ii)(I)'';
(ii) by striking ``clause (iii)(III)'' in subclause (I) and
inserting ``clause (ii)(III)'';
(iii) by striking ``the date on which the employee would
have attained age 70\1/2\,'' in subclause (I) and inserting
``April 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year in
which the spouse attains 70\1/2\,''; and
(iv) by striking ``the distributions to such spouse
begin,'' in subclause (II) and inserting ``his entire
interest has been distributed to him,''.
(3) Effective date.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the amendments made by this subsection shall apply to years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
(B) Distributions to surviving spouse.--
(i) In general.--In the case of an employee described in
clause (ii), distributions to the surviving spouse of the
employee shall not be required to commence prior to the date
on which
[[Page 24403]]
such distributions would have been required to begin under
section 401(a)(9)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as
in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act).
(ii) Certain employees.--An employee is described in this
clause if such employee dies before--
(I) the date of the enactment of this Act, and
(II) the required beginning date (within the meaning of
section 401(a)(9)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) of
the employee.
(c) Reduction in Excise Tax.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 4974 is amended
by striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``10 percent''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 425. CLARIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF DIVISION OF
SECTION 457 PLAN BENEFITS UPON DIVORCE.
(a) In General.--Section 414(p)(11) (relating to
application of rules to governmental and church plans) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or an eligible deferred compensation
plan (within the meaning of section 457(b))'' after
``subsection (e))''; and
(2) in the heading, by striking ``governmental and church
plans'' and inserting ``certain other plans''.
(b) Waiver of Certain Distribution Requirements.--Paragraph
(10) of section 414(p) is amended by striking ``and section
409(d)'' and inserting ``section 409(d), and section
457(d)''.
(c) Tax Treatment of Payments From a Section 457 Plan.--
Subsection (p) of section 414 is amended by redesignating
paragraph (12) as paragraph (13) and inserting after
paragraph (11) the following new paragraph:
``(12) Tax treatment of payments from a section 457 plan.--
If a distribution or payment from an eligible deferred
compensation plan described in section 457(b) is made
pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, rules
similar to the rules of section 402(e)(1)(A) shall apply to
such distribution or payment.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to transfers, distributions, and payments made
after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 426. PROVISIONS RELATING TO HARDSHIP DISTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Safe Harbor Relief.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall revise
the regulations relating to hardship distributions under
section 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(IV) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide that the period an employee is prohibited
from making elective and employee contributions in order for
a distribution to be deemed necessary to satisfy financial
need shall be equal to 6 months.
(2) Effective date.--The revised regulations under this
subsection shall apply to years beginning after December 31,
2000.
(b) Hardship Distributions Not Treated as Eligible Rollover
Distributions.--
(1) Modification of definition of eligible rollover.--
Section 402(c)(4)(C) (relating to eligible rollover
distribution) is amended by striking ``described in section
401(k)(2)(B)(i)(IV)'' and inserting ``under the terms of the
plan''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to distributions made after December 31, 2001,
unless a plan administrator elects to apply such amendment to
distributions made after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 427. WAIVER OF TAX ON NONDEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
DOMESTIC OR SIMILAR WORKERS.
(a) In General.--Section 4972(c)(6) (relating to exceptions
to nondeductible contributions), as amended by section
442(b), is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (A), by striking the period and inserting ``,
or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), and by inserting after
subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
``(C) so much of the contributions to a qualified employer
plan which are not deductible when contributed solely because
such contributions are not made in connection with a trade or
business of the employer.''.
(b) Exclusion of Certain Contributions.--Section
4972(c)(6), as amended by subsection (a), is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Subparagraph
(C) shall not apply to contributions made on behalf of the
employer or a member of the employer's family (as defined in
section 447(e)(1)).''.
(c) No Inference.--Nothing in the amendments made by this
section shall be construed to infer the proper treatment of
nondeductible contributions under the laws in effect before
such amendments.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
Subtitle D--Increasing Portability For Participants
SEC. 431. ROLLOVERS ALLOWED AMONG VARIOUS TYPES OF PLANS.
(a) Rollovers From and to Section 457 Plans.--
(1) Rollovers from section 457 plans.--
(A) In general.--Section 457(e) (relating to other
definitions and special rules) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(16) Rollover amounts.--
``(A) General rule.--In the case of an eligible deferred
compensation plan established and maintained by an employer
described in subsection (e)(1)(A), if--
``(i) any portion of the balance to the credit of an
employee in such plan is paid to such employee in an eligible
rollover distribution (within the meaning of section
402(c)(4) without regard to subparagraph (C) thereof),
``(ii) the employee transfers any portion of the property
such employee receives in such distribution to an eligible
retirement plan described in section 402(c)(8)(B), and
``(iii) in the case of a distribution of property other
than money, the amount so transferred consists of the
property distributed,
then such distribution (to the extent so transferred) shall
not be includible in gross income for the taxable year in
which paid.
``(B) Certain rules made applicable.--The rules of
paragraphs (2) through (7) and (9) of section 402(c) and
section 402(f) shall apply for purposes of subparagraph (A).
``(C) Reporting.--Rollovers under this paragraph shall be
reported to the Secretary in the same manner as rollovers
from qualified retirement plans (as defined in section
4974(c)).''.
(B) Deferral limit determined without regard to rollover
amounts.--Section 457(b)(2) (defining eligible deferred
compensation plan) is amended by inserting ``(other than
rollover amounts)'' after ``taxable year''.
(C) Direct rollover.--Paragraph (1) of section 457(d) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``, and'', and by inserting after subparagraph (B)
the following:
``(C) in the case of a plan maintained by an employer
described in subsection (e)(1)(A), the plan meets
requirements similar to the requirements of section
401(a)(31).
Any amount transferred in a direct trustee-to-trustee
transfer in accordance with section 401(a)(31) shall not be
includible in gross income for the taxable year of
transfer.''.
(D) Withholding.--
(i) Paragraph (12) of section 3401(a) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(E) under or to an eligible deferred compensation plan
which, at the time of such payment, is a plan described in
section 457(b) maintained by an employer described in section
457(e)(1)(A), or''.
(ii) Paragraph (3) of section 3405(c) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Eligible rollover distribution.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `eligible rollover distribution' has the
meaning given such term by section 402(f)(2)(A).''.
(iii) Liability for withholding.--Subparagraph (B) of
section 3405(d)(2) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end
of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of clause
(iii) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the
following:
``(iv) section 457(b) and which is maintained by an
eligible employer described in section 457(e)(1)(A).''.
(2) Rollovers to section 457 plans.--
(A) In general.--Section 402(c)(8)(B) (defining eligible
retirement plan) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
clause (iii), by striking the period at the end of clause
(iv) and inserting ``, and'', and by inserting after clause
(iv) the following new clause:
``(v) an eligible deferred compensation plan described in
section 457(b) which is maintained by an eligible employer
described in section 457(e)(1)(A).''.
(B) Separate accounting.--Section 402(c) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Separate accounting.--Unless a plan described in
clause (v) of paragraph (8)(B) agrees to separately account
for amounts rolled into such plan from eligible retirement
plans not described in such clause, the plan described in
such clause may not accept transfers or rollovers from such
retirement plans.''.
(C) 10 percent additional tax.--Subsection (t) of section
72 (relating to 10-percent additional tax on early
distributions from qualified retirement plans) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Special rule for rollovers to section 457 plans.--For
purposes of this subsection, a distribution from an eligible
deferred compensation plan (as defined in section 457(b)) of
an eligible employer described in section 457(e)(1)(A) shall
be treated as a distribution from a qualified retirement plan
described in 4974(c)(1) to the extent that such distribution
is attributable to an amount transferred to an eligible
deferred compensation plan from a qualified retirement plan
(as defined in section 4974(c)).''.
(b) Allowance of Rollovers From and to 403(b) Plans.--
(1) Rollovers from section 403(b) plans.--Section
403(b)(8)(A)(ii) (relating to rollover amounts) is amended by
striking ``such distribution'' and all that follows and
inserting ``such distribution to an eligible retirement plan
described in section 402(c)(8)(B), and''.
(2) Rollovers to section 403(b) plans.--Section
402(c)(8)(B) (defining eligible retirement plan), as amended
by subsection (a), is amended by striking ``and'' at the end
of clause (iv), by striking the period at the end of clause
(v) and inserting ``, and'', and by inserting after clause
(v) the following new clause:
``(vi) an annuity contract described in section 403(b).''.
(c) Expanded Explanation to Recipients of Rollover
Distributions.--Paragraph (1) of section 402(f) (relating to
written explanation to recipients of distributions eligible
for rollover treatment) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) of the provisions under which distributions from the
eligible retirement plan receiving
[[Page 24404]]
the distribution may be subject to restrictions and tax
consequences which are different from those applicable to
distributions from the plan making such distribution.''.
(d) Spousal Rollovers.--Section 402(c)(9) (relating to
rollover where spouse receives distribution after death of
employee) is amended by striking ``; except that'' and all
that follows up to the end period.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 72(o)(4) is amended by striking ``and
408(d)(3)'' and inserting ``403(b)(8), 408(d)(3), and
457(e)(16)''.
(2) Section 219(d)(2) is amended by striking ``or
408(d)(3)'' and inserting ``408(d)(3), or 457(e)(16)''.
(3) Section 401(a)(31)(B) is amended by striking ``and
403(a)(4)'' and inserting ``, 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), and
457(e)(16)''.
(4) Subparagraph (A) of section 402(f)(2) is amended by
striking ``or paragraph (4) of section 403(a)'' and inserting
``, paragraph (4) of section 403(a), subparagraph (A) of
section 403(b)(8), or subparagraph (A) of section
457(e)(16)''.
(5) Paragraph (1) of section 402(f) is amended by striking
``from an eligible retirement plan''.
(6) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 402(f)(1) are
amended by striking ``another eligible retirement plan'' and
inserting ``an eligible retirement plan''.
(7) Subparagraph (B) of section 403(b)(8) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) Certain rules made applicable.--The rules of
paragraphs (2) through (7) and (9) of section 402(c) and
section 402(f) shall apply for purposes of subparagraph (A),
except that section 402(f) shall be applied to the payor in
lieu of the plan administrator.''.
(8) Section 408(a)(1) is amended by striking ``or
403(b)(8),'' and inserting ``403(b)(8), or 457(e)(16)''.
(9) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 415(b)(2) are each
amended by striking ``and 408(d)(3)'' and inserting
``403(b)(8), 408(d)(3), and 457(e)(16)''.
(10) Section 415(c)(2) is amended by striking ``and
408(d)(3)'' and inserting ``408(d)(3), and 457(e)(16)''.
(11) Section 4973(b)(1)(A) is amended by striking ``or
408(d)(3)'' and inserting ``408(d)(3), or 457(e)(16)''.
(f) Effective Date; Special Rules.--
(1) Effective date.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the amendments made by this section shall apply to
distributions after December 31, 2000.
(2) Reasonable notice.--No penalty shall be imposed on a
plan for the failure to provide the information required by
the amendment made by subsection (c) with respect to any
distribution made before January 1, 2002, if the
administrator of such plan makes a reasonable attempt to
comply with such requirement.
(3) Special rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, subsections (h)(3) and (h)(5) of section 1122 of the Tax
Reform Act of 1986 shall not apply to any distribution from
an eligible retirement plan (as defined in clause (iii) or
(iv) of section 402(c)(8)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) on behalf of an individual if there was a rollover to
such plan on behalf of such individual which is permitted
solely by reason of any amendment made by this section.
SEC. 432. ROLLOVERS OF IRAS INTO WORKPLACE RETIREMENT PLANS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 408(d)(3)
(relating to rollover amounts) is amended by adding ``or'' at
the end of clause (i), by striking clauses (ii) and (iii),
and by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) the entire amount received (including money and any
other property) is paid into an eligible retirement plan for
the benefit of such individual not later than the 60th day
after the date on which the payment or distribution is
received, except that the maximum amount which may be paid
into such plan may not exceed the portion of the amount
received which is includible in gross income (determined
without regard to this paragraph).
For purposes of clause (ii), the term `eligible retirement
plan' means an eligible retirement plan described in clause
(iii), (iv), (v), or (vi) of section 402(c)(8)(B).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 403(b) is amended by striking
``section 408(d)(3)(A)(iii)'' and inserting ``section
408(d)(3)(A)(ii)''.
(2) Clause (i) of section 408(d)(3)(D) is amended by
striking ``(i), (ii), or (iii)'' and inserting ``(i) or
(ii)''.
(3) Subparagraph (G) of section 408(d)(3) is amended to
read as follows:
``(G) Simple retirement accounts.--In the case of any
payment or distribution out of a simple retirement account
(as defined in subsection (p)) to which section 72(t)(6)
applies, this paragraph shall not apply unless such payment
or distribution is paid into another simple retirement
account.''.
(c) Effective Date; Special Rule.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
(2) Special rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, subsections (h)(3) and (h)(5) of section 1122 of the Tax
Reform Act of 1986 shall not apply to any distribution from
an eligible retirement plan (as defined in clause (iii) or
(iv) of section 402(c)(8)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) on behalf of an individual if there was a rollover to
such plan on behalf of such individual which is permitted
solely by reason of the amendments made by this section.
SEC. 433. ROLLOVERS OF AFTER-TAX CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Rollovers From Exempt Trusts.--Paragraph (2) of section
402(c) (relating to maximum amount which may be rolled over)
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
preceding sentence shall not apply to such distribution to
the extent--
``(A) such portion is transferred in a direct trustee-to-
trustee transfer to a qualified trust which is part of a plan
which is a defined contribution plan and which agrees to
separately account for amounts so transferred, including
separately accounting for the portion of such distribution
which is includible in gross income and the portion of such
distribution which is not so includible, or
``(B) such portion is transferred to an eligible retirement
plan described in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (8)(B).''.
(b) Optional Direct Transfer of Eligible Rollover
Distributions.--Subparagraph (B) of section 401(a)(31)
(relating to limitation) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to such
distribution if the plan to which such distribution is
transferred--
``(i) agrees to separately account for amounts so
transferred, including separately accounting for the portion
of such distribution which is includible in gross income and
the portion of such distribution which is not so includible,
or
``(ii) is an eligible retirement plan described in clause
(i) or (ii) of section 402(c)(8)(B).''.
(c) Rules for Applying Section 72 to IRAs.--Paragraph (3)
of section 408(d) (relating to special rules for applying
section 72) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``(H) Application of section 72.--
``(i) In general.--If--
``(I) a distribution is made from an individual retirement
plan, and
``(II) a rollover contribution is made to an eligible
retirement plan described in section 402(c)(8)(B)(iii), (iv),
(v), or (vi) with respect to all or part of such
distribution,
then, notwithstanding paragraph (2), the rules of clause (ii)
shall apply for purposes of applying section 72.
``(ii) Applicable rules.--In the case of a distribution
described in clause (i)--
``(I) section 72 shall be applied separately to such
distribution,
``(II) notwithstanding the pro rata allocation of income
on, and investment in, the contract to distributions under
section 72, the portion of such distribution rolled over to
an eligible retirement plan described in clause (i) shall be
treated as from income on the contract (to the extent of the
aggregate income on the contract from all individual
retirement plans of the distributee), and
``(III) appropriate adjustments shall be made in applying
section 72 to other distributions in such taxable year and
subsequent taxable years.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions made after December 31, 2001.
SEC. 434. HARDSHIP EXCEPTION TO 60-DAY RULE.
(a) Exempt Trusts.--Paragraph (3) of section 402(c)
(relating to transfer must be made within 60 days of receipt)
is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Transfer must be made within 60 days of receipt.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
paragraph (1) shall not apply to any transfer of a
distribution made after the 60th day following the day on
which the distributee received the property distributed.
``(B) Hardship exception.--The Secretary may waive the 60-
day requirement under subparagraph (A) where the failure to
waive such requirement would be against equity or good
conscience, including casualty, disaster, or other events
beyond the reasonable control of the individual subject to
such requirement.''.
(b) IRAs.--Paragraph (3) of section 408(d) (relating to
rollover contributions), as amended by section 433, is
amended by adding after subparagraph (H) the following new
subparagraph:
``(I) Waiver of 60-day requirement.--The Secretary may
waive the 60-day requirement under subparagraphs (A) and (D)
where the failure to waive such requirement would be against
equity or good conscience, including casualty, disaster, or
other events beyond the reasonable control of the individual
subject to such requirement.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 435. TREATMENT OF FORMS OF DISTRIBUTION.
(a) Plan Transfers.--
(1) Amendment of internal revenue code.--Paragraph (6) of
section 411(d) (relating to accrued benefit not to be
decreased by amendment) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Plan transfers.--
``(i) In general.--A defined contribution plan (in this
subparagraph referred to as the `transferee plan') shall not
be treated as failing to meet the requirements of this
subsection merely because the transferee plan does not
provide some or all of the forms of distribution previously
available under another defined contribution plan (in this
subparagraph referred to as the `transferor plan') to the
extent that--
``(I) the forms of distribution previously available under
the transferor plan applied to the account of a participant
or beneficiary under the transferor plan that was transferred
from the transferor plan to the transferee plan pursuant to a
direct transfer rather than pursuant to a distribution from
the transferor plan,
[[Page 24405]]
``(II) the terms of both the transferor plan and the
transferee plan authorize the transfer described in subclause
(I),
``(III) the transfer described in subclause (I) was made
pursuant to a voluntary election by the participant or
beneficiary whose account was transferred to the transferee
plan,
``(IV) the election described in subclause (III) was made
after the participant or beneficiary received a notice
describing the consequences of making the election, and
``(V) the transferee plan allows the participant or
beneficiary described in subclause (III) to receive any
distribution to which the participant or beneficiary is
entitled under the transferee plan in the form of a single
sum distribution.
``(ii) Special rule for mergers; etc.--Clause (i) shall
apply to plan mergers and other transactions having the
effect of a direct transfer, including consolidations of
benefits attributable to different employers within a
multiple employer plan.
``(E) Elimination of form of distribution.--Except to the
extent provided in regulations, a defined contribution plan
shall not be treated as failing to meet the requirements of
this section merely because of the elimination of a form of
distribution previously available thereunder. This
subparagraph shall not apply to the elimination of a form of
distribution with respect to any participant unless--
``(i) a single sum payment is available to such participant
at the same time or times as the form of distribution being
eliminated, and
``(ii) such single sum payment is based on the same or
greater portion of the participant's account as the form of
distribution being eliminated.''.
(2) Amendment of erisa.--Section 204(g) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1054(g)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4)(A) A defined contribution plan (in this subparagraph
referred to as the `transferee plan') shall not be treated as
failing to meet the requirements of this subsection merely
because the transferee plan does not provide some or all of
the forms of distribution previously available under another
defined contribution plan (in this subparagraph referred to
as the `transferor plan') to the extent that--
``(i) the forms of distribution previously available under
the transferor plan applied to the account of a participant
or beneficiary under the transferor plan that was transferred
from the transferor plan to the transferee plan pursuant to a
direct transfer rather than pursuant to a distribution from
the transferor plan;
``(ii) the terms of both the transferor plan and the
transferee plan authorize the transfer described in clause
(i);
``(iii) the transfer described in clause (i) was made
pursuant to a voluntary election by the participant or
beneficiary whose account was transferred to the transferee
plan;
``(iv) the election described in clause (iii) was made
after the participant or beneficiary received a notice
describing the consequences of making the election; and
``(v) the transferee plan allows the participant or
beneficiary described in clause (iii) to receive any
distribution to which the participant or beneficiary is
entitled under the transferee plan in the form of a single
sum distribution.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall apply to plan mergers and
other transactions having the effect of a direct transfer,
including consolidations of benefits attributable to
different employers within a multiple employer plan.
``(5) Except to the extent provided in regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury, a defined
contribution plan shall not be treated as failing to meet the
requirements of this subsection merely because of the
elimination of a form of distribution previously available
thereunder. This paragraph shall not apply to the elimination
of a form of distribution with respect to any participant
unless--
``(A) a single sum payment is available to such participant
at the same time or times as the form of distribution being
eliminated; and
``(B) such single sum payment is based on the same or
greater portion of the participant's account as the form of
distribution being eliminated.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(b) Regulations.--
(1) Amendment of internal revenue code.--Paragraph (6)(B)
of section 411(d) (relating to accrued benefit not to be
decreased by amendment) is amended by inserting after the
second sentence the following new sentence: ``The Secretary
shall by regulations provide that this subparagraph shall not
apply to any plan amendment which reduces or eliminates
benefits or subsidies which create significant burdens or
complexities for the plan and plan participants and does not
adversely affect the rights of any participant in a more than
de minimis manner.''.
(2) Amendment of erisa.--Section 204(g)(2) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1054(g)(2))
is amended by inserting before the last sentence the
following new sentence: ``The Secretary of the Treasury shall
by regulations provide that this paragraph shall not apply to
any plan amendment which reduces or eliminates benefits or
subsidies which create significant burdens or complexities
for the plan and plan participants and does not adversely
affect the rights of any participant in a more than de
minimis manner.''.
(3) Secretary directed.--Not later than December 31, 2002,
the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to issue
regulations under section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 and section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, including the regulations
required by the amendment made by this subsection. Such
regulations shall apply to plan years beginning after
December 31, 2002, or such earlier date as is specified by
the Secretary of the Treasury.
SEC. 436. RATIONALIZATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON DISTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Modification of Same Desk Exception.--
(1) Section 401(k).--
(A) Section 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(I) (relating to qualified cash
or deferred arrangements) is amended by striking ``separation
from service'' and inserting ``severance from employment''.
(B) Subparagraph (A) of section 401(k)(10) (relating to
distributions upon termination of plan or disposition of
assets or subsidiary) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--An event described in this subparagraph
is the termination of the plan without establishment or
maintenance of another defined contribution plan (other than
an employee stock ownership plan as defined in section
4975(e)(7)).''.
(C) Section 401(k)(10) is amended--
(i) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``An event'' in clause (i) and inserting
``A termination''; and
(II) by striking ``the event'' in clause (i) and inserting
``the termination'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(iii) by striking ``or disposition of assets or
subsidiary'' in the heading.
(2) Section 403(b).--
(A) Paragraphs (7)(A)(ii) and (11)(A) of section 403(b) are
each amended by striking ``separates from service'' and
inserting ``has a severance from employment''.
(B) The heading for paragraph (11) of section 403(b) is
amended by striking ``separation from service'' and inserting
``severance from employment''.
(3) Section 457.--Clause (ii) of section 457(d)(1)(A) is
amended by striking ``is separated from service'' and
inserting ``has a severance from employment''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 437. PURCHASE OF SERVICE CREDIT IN GOVERNMENTAL DEFINED
BENEFIT PLANS.
(a) 403(b) Plans.--Subsection (b) of section 403 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) Trustee-to-trustee transfers to purchase permissive
service credit.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to a
defined benefit governmental plan (as defined in section
414(d)) if such transfer is--
``(A) for the purchase of permissive service credit (as
defined in section 415(n)(3)(A)) under such plan, or
``(B) a repayment to which section 415 does not apply by
reason of subsection (k)(3) thereof.''.
(b) 457 Plans.--Subsection (e) of section 457 is amended by
adding after paragraph (16) the following new paragraph:
``(17) Trustee-to-trustee transfers to purchase permissive
service credit.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to a
defined benefit governmental plan (as defined in section
414(d)) if such transfer is--
``(A) for the purchase of permissive service credit (as
defined in section 415(n)(3)(A)) under such plan, or
``(B) a repayment to which section 415 does not apply by
reason of subsection (k)(3) thereof.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to trustee-to-trustee transfers after December
31, 2000.
SEC. 438. EMPLOYERS MAY DISREGARD ROLLOVERS FOR PURPOSES OF
CASH-OUT AMOUNTS.
(a) Qualified Plans.--
(1) Amendment of internal revenue code.--Section 411(a)(11)
(relating to restrictions on certain mandatory distributions)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Special rule for rollover contributions.--A plan
shall not fail to meet the requirements of this paragraph if,
under the terms of the plan, the present value of the
nonforfeitable accrued benefit is determined without regard
to that portion of such benefit which is attributable to
rollover contributions (and earnings allocable thereto). For
purposes of this subparagraph, the term `rollover
contributions' means any rollover contribution under sections
402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), 408(d)(3)(A)(ii), and
457(e)(16).''.
(2) Amendment of erisa.--Section 203(e) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1053(c)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) A plan shall not fail to meet the requirements of
this subsection if, under the terms of the plan, the present
value of the nonforfeitable accrued benefit is determined
without regard to that portion of such benefit which is
attributable to rollover contributions (and earnings
allocable thereto). For purposes of this subparagraph, the
term `rollover contributions' means any rollover contribution
under sections 402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8),
408(d)(3)(A)(ii), and 457(e)(16) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.''.
(b) Eligible Deferred Compensation Plans.--Clause (i) of
section 457(e)(9)(A) is
[[Page 24406]]
amended by striking ``such amount'' and inserting ``the
portion of such amount which is not attributable to rollover
contributions (as defined in section 411(a)(11)(D))''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 439. MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION AND INCLUSION REQUIREMENTS FOR
SECTION 457 PLANS.
(a) Minimum Distribution Requirements.--Paragraph (2) of
section 457(d) (relating to distribution requirements) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Minimum distribution requirements.--A plan meets the
minimum distribution requirements of this paragraph if such
plan meets the requirements of section 401(a)(9).''.
(b) Inclusion in Gross Income.--
(1) Year of inclusion.--Subsection (a) of section 457
(relating to year of inclusion in gross income) is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Year of Inclusion in Gross Income.--
``(1) In general.--Any amount of compensation deferred
under an eligible deferred compensation plan, and any income
attributable to the amounts so deferred, shall be includible
in gross income only for the taxable year in which such
compensation or other income--
``(A) is paid to the participant or other beneficiary, in
the case of a plan of an eligible employer described in
subsection (e)(1)(A), and
``(B) is paid or otherwise made available to the
participant or other beneficiary, in the case of a plan of an
eligible employer described in subsection (e)(1)(B).
``(2) Special rule for rollover amounts.--To the extent
provided in section 72(t)(9), section 72(t) shall apply to
any amount includible in gross income under this
subsection.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) So much of paragraph (9) of section 457(e) as precedes
subparagraph (A) is amended to read as follows:
``(9) Benefits of tax exempt organization plans not treated
as made available by reason of certain elections, etc.--In
the case of an eligible deferred compensation plan of an
employer described in subsection (e)(1)(B)--''.
(B) Section 457(d) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rule for government plan.--An eligible
deferred compensation plan of an employer described in
subsection (e)(1)(A) shall not be treated as failing to meet
the requirements of this subsection solely by reason of
making a distribution described in subsection (e)(9)(A).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
Subtitle E--Strengthening Pension Security and Enforcement
SEC. 441. REPEAL OF 155 PERCENT OF CURRENT LIABILITY FUNDING
LIMIT.
(a) Amendments of Internal Revenue Code.--Section 412(c)(7)
(relating to full-funding limitation) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the applicable percentage'' in
subparagraph (A)(i)(I) and inserting ``in the case of plan
years beginning before January 1, 2004, the applicable
percentage''; and
(2) by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
``(F) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(i)(I), the applicable percentage shall be determined in
accordance with the following table:
``In the case of any plan year beginning The applicable percentage is--
2001........................................................160
2002........................................................165
2003......................................................170.''.
(b) Amendment of ERISA.--Section 302(c)(7) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1082(c)(7))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``the applicable percentage'' in
subparagraph (A)(i)(I) and inserting ``in the case of plan
years beginning before January 1, 2004, the applicable
percentage''; and
(2) by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
``(F) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(i)(I), the applicable percentage shall be determined in
accordance with the following table:
``In the case of any plan year beginning The applicable percentage is--
2001........................................................160
2002........................................................165
2003......................................................170.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 442. MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION DEDUCTION RULES MODIFIED AND
APPLIED TO ALL DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 404(a)(1)
(relating to special rule in case of certain plans) is
amended to read as follows:
``(D) Special rule in case of certain plans.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of any defined benefit plan,
except as provided in regulations, the maximum amount
deductible under the limitations of this paragraph shall not
be less than the unfunded termination liability (determined
as if the proposed termination date referred to in section
4041(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 were the last day of the plan year).
``(ii) Plans with less than 100 participants.--For purposes
of this subparagraph, in the case of a plan which has less
than 100 participants for the plan year, termination
liability shall not include the liability attributable to
benefit increases for highly compensated employees (as
defined in section 414(q)) resulting from a plan amendment
which is made or becomes effective, whichever is later,
within the last 2 years before the termination date.
``(iii) Rule for determining number of participants.--For
purposes of determining whether a plan has more than 100
participants, all defined benefit plans maintained by the
same employer (or any member of such employer's controlled
group (within the meaning of section 412(l)(8)(C))) shall be
treated as one plan, but only employees of such member or
employer shall be taken into account.
``(iv) Plans maintained by professional service
employers.--Clause (i) shall not apply to a plan described in
section 4021(b)(13) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (6) of section 4972(c)
is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Exceptions.--In determining the amount of
nondeductible contributions for any taxable year, there shall
not be taken into account so much of the contributions to one
or more defined contribution plans which are not deductible
when contributed solely because of section 404(a)(7) as does
not exceed the greater of--
``(A) the amount of contributions not in excess of 6
percent of compensation (within the meaning of section
404(a)) paid or accrued (during the taxable year for which
the contributions were made) to beneficiaries under the
plans, or
``(B) the sum of--
``(i) the amount of contributions described in section
401(m)(4)(A), plus
``(ii) the amount of contributions described in section
402(g)(3)(A).
For purposes of this paragraph, the deductible limits under
section 404(a)(7) shall first be applied to amounts
contributed to a defined benefit plan and then to amounts
described in subparagraph (B).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 443. EXCISE TAX RELIEF FOR SOUND PENSION FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 4972 (relating
to nondeductible contributions) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Defined benefit plan exception.--In determining the
amount of nondeductible contributions for any taxable year,
an employer may elect for such year not to take into account
any contributions to a defined benefit plan except to the
extent that such contributions exceed the full-funding
limitation (as defined in section 412(c)(7), determined
without regard to subparagraph (A)(i)(I) thereof). For
purposes of this paragraph, the deductible limits under
section 404(a)(7) shall first be applied to amounts
contributed to defined contribution plans and then to amounts
described in this paragraph. If an employer makes an election
under this paragraph for a taxable year, paragraph (6) shall
not apply to such employer for such taxable year.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 444. EXCISE TAX ON FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE BY DEFINED
BENEFIT PLANS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING FUTURE
BENEFIT ACCRUALS.
(a) Amendment of Internal Revenue Code.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 43 (relating to qualified pension,
etc., plans) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 4980F. FAILURE OF APPLICABLE PLANS REDUCING BENEFIT
ACCRUALS TO SATISFY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed a tax on
the failure of any applicable pension plan to meet the
requirements of subsection (e) with respect to any applicable
individual.
``(b) Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the tax imposed by
subsection (a) on any failure with respect to any applicable
individual shall be $100 for each day in the noncompliance
period with respect to such failure.
``(2) Noncompliance period.--For purposes of this section,
the term `noncompliance period' means, with respect to any
failure, the period beginning on the date the failure first
occurs and ending on the date the notice to which the failure
relates is provided or the failure is otherwise corrected.
``(c) Limitations on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) Tax not to apply where failure not discovered and
reasonable diligence exercised.--No tax shall be imposed by
subsection (a) on any failure during any period for which it
is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that any
person subject to liability for the tax under subsection (d)
did not know that the failure existed and exercised
reasonable diligence to meet the requirements of subsection
(e).
``(2) Tax not to apply to failures corrected within 30
days.--No tax shall be imposed by subsection (a) on any
failure if--
``(A) any person subject to liability for the tax under
subsection (d) exercised reasonable diligence to meet the
requirements of subsection (e), and
``(B) such person provides the notice described in
subsection (e) during the 30-day period beginning on the
first date such person knew, or exercising reasonable
diligence would have known, that such failure existed.
[[Page 24407]]
``(3) Overall limitation for unintentional failures.--
``(A) In general.--If the person subject to liability for
tax under subsection (d) exercised reasonable diligence to
meet the requirements of subsection (e), the tax imposed by
subsection (a) for failures during the taxable year of the
employer (or, in the case of a multiemployer plan, the
taxable year of the trust forming part of the plan) shall not
exceed $500,000. For purposes of the preceding sentence, all
multiemployer plans of which the same trust forms a part
shall be treated as 1 plan.
``(B) Taxable years in the case of certain controlled
groups.--For purposes of this paragraph, if all persons who
are treated as a single employer for purposes of this section
do not have the same taxable year, the taxable years taken
into account shall be determined under principles similar to
the principles of section 1561.
``(4) Waiver by secretary.--In the case of a failure which
is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the
Secretary may waive part or all of the tax imposed by
subsection (a) to the extent that the payment of such tax
would be excessive or otherwise inequitable relative to the
failure involved.
``(d) Liability for Tax.--The following shall be liable for
the tax imposed by subsection (a):
``(1) In the case of a plan other than a multiemployer
plan, the employer.
``(2) In the case of a multiemployer plan, the plan.
``(e) Notice Requirements for Plans Significantly Reducing
Benefit Accruals.--
``(1) In general.--If an applicable pension plan is amended
to provide for a significant reduction in the rate of future
benefit accrual, the plan administrator shall provide written
notice to each applicable individual (and to each employee
organization representing applicable individuals).
``(2) Notice.--The notice required by paragraph (1) shall
be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the
average plan participant and shall provide sufficient
information (as determined in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary) to allow applicable individuals
to understand the effect of the plan amendment. The Secretary
may provide a simplified form of notice for, or exempt from
any notice requirement, a plan--
``(A) which has fewer than 100 participants who have
accrued a benefit under the plan, or
``(B) which offers participants the option to choose
between the new benefit formula and the old benefit formula.
``(3) Timing of notice.--Except as provided in regulations,
the notice required by paragraph (1) shall be provided within
a reasonable time before the effective date of the plan
amendment.
``(4) Designees.--Any notice under paragraph (1) may be
provided to a person designated, in writing, by the person to
which it would otherwise be provided.
``(5) Notice before adoption of amendment.--A plan shall
not be treated as failing to meet the requirements of
paragraph (1) merely because notice is provided before the
adoption of the plan amendment if no material modification of
the amendment occurs before the amendment is adopted.
``(f) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Applicable individual.--The term `applicable
individual' means, with respect to any plan amendment--
``(A) each participant in the plan, and
``(B) any beneficiary who is an alternate payee (within the
meaning of section 414(p)(8)) under an applicable qualified
domestic relations order (within the meaning of section
414(p)(1)(A)),
whose rate of future benefit accrual under the plan may
reasonably be expected to be significantly reduced by such
plan amendment.
``(2) Applicable pension plan.--The term `applicable
pension plan' means--
``(A) any defined benefit plan, or
``(B) an individual account plan which is subject to the
funding standards of section 412.
Such term shall not include a governmental plan (within the
meaning of section 414(d)) or a church plan (within the
meaning of section 414(e)) with respect to which the election
provided by section 410(d) has not been made.
``(3) Early retirement.--A plan amendment which eliminates
or significantly reduces any early retirement benefit or
retirement-type subsidy (within the meaning of section
411(d)(6)(B)(i)) shall be treated as having the effect of
significantly reducing the rate of future benefit accrual.
``(g) New Technologies.--The Secretary may by regulations
allow any notice under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (e)
to be provided by using new technologies.''
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
43 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 4980F. Failure of applicable plans reducing benefit accruals to
satisfy notice requirements.''.
(b) Amendment of ERISA.--Section 204(h) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1054(h)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3)(A) An applicable pension plan to which paragraph (1)
applies shall not be treated as meeting the requirements of
such paragraph unless, in addition to any notice required to
be provided to an individual or organization under such
paragraph, the plan administrator provides the notice
described in subparagraph (B) to each applicable individual
(and to each employee organization representing applicable
individuals).
``(B) The notice required by subparagraph (A) shall be
written in a manner calculated to be understood by the
average plan participant and shall provide sufficient
information (as determined in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury) to allow
applicable individuals to understand the effect of the plan
amendment. The Secretary of the Treasury may provide a
simplified form of notice for, or exempt from any notice
requirement, a plan--
``(i) which has fewer than 100 participants who have
accrued a benefit under the plan, or
``(ii) which offers participants the option to choose
between the new benefit formula and the old benefit formula.
``(C) Except as provided in regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury, the notice required by
subparagraph (A) shall be provided within a reasonable time
before the effective date of the plan amendment.
``(D) Any notice under subparagraph (A) may be provided to
a person designated, in writing, by the person to which it
would otherwise be provided.
``(E) A plan shall not be treated as failing to meet the
requirements of subparagraph (A) merely because notice is
provided before the adoption of the plan amendment if no
material modification of the amendment occurs before the
amendment is adopted.
``(F) The Secretary of the Treasury may by regulations
allow any notice under subparagraph (A) or (B) to be provided
by using new technologies.
``(4) For purposes of paragraph (3)--
``(A) The term `applicable individual' means, with respect
to any plan amendment--
``(i) each participant in the plan; and
``(ii) any beneficiary who is an alternate payee (within
the meaning of section 206(d)(3)(K)) under an applicable
qualified domestic relations order (within the meaning of
section 206(d)(3)(B)(i)),
whose rate of future benefit accrual under the plan may
reasonably be expected to be significantly reduced by such
plan amendment.
``(B) The term `applicable pension plan' means--
``(i) any defined benefit plan; or
``(ii) an individual account plan which is subject to the
funding standards of section 412 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
``(C) A plan amendment which eliminates or significantly
reduces any early retirement benefit or retirement-type
subsidy (within the meaning of subsection (g)(2)(A)) shall be
treated as having the effect of significantly reducing the
rate of future benefit accrual.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to plan amendments taking effect on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Transition.--Until such time as the Secretary of the
Treasury issues regulations under sections 4980F(e)(2) and
(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section
204(h)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (as added by the amendments made by this section), a
plan shall be treated as meeting the requirements of such
sections if it makes a good faith effort to comply with such
requirements.
(3) Special notice rules.--
(A) In general.--The period for providing any notice
required by the amendments made by this section shall not end
before the date which is 3 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(B) Reasonable notice.--The amendments made by this section
shall not apply to any plan amendment taking effect on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act if, before
October 25, 2000, notice was provided to participants and
beneficiaries adversely affected by the plan amendment (or
their representatives) which was reasonably expected to
notify them of the nature and effective date of the plan
amendment.
(d) Study.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall prepare a
report on the effects of conversions of traditional defined
benefit plans to cash balance or hybrid formula plans. Such
study shall examine the effect of such conversions on longer
service participants, including the incidence and effects of
``wear away'' provisions under which participants earn no
additional benefits for a period of time after the
conversion. As soon as practicable, but not later than 60
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit such report, together with
recommendations thereon, to the Committee on Ways and Means
and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Finance and the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate.
SEC. 445. TREATMENT OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER SECTION 415.
(a) Compensation Limit.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (11) of section 415(b) (relating
to limitation for defined benefit plans) is amended to read
as follows:
``(11) Special limitation rule for governmental and
multiemployer plans.--In the case of a governmental plan (as
defined in section 414(d)) or a multiemployer plan (as
defined in section 414(f)), subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1)
shall not apply.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 415(b)(7) (relating to
benefits under certain collectively bargained plans) is
amended by inserting ``(other than a multiemployer plan)''
after ``defined benefit plan'' in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A).
(b) Combining and Aggregation of Plans.--
[[Page 24408]]
(1) Combining of plans.--Subsection (f) of section 415
(relating to combining of plans) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Exception for multiemployer plans.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1) and subsection (g), a multiemployer plan (as
defined in section 414(f)) shall not be combined or
aggregated--
``(A) with any other plan which is not a multiemployer plan
for purposes of applying subsection (b)(1)(B) to such other
plan, or
``(B) with any other multiemployer plan for purposes of
applying the limitations established in this section.''.
(2) Conforming amendment for aggregation of plans.--
Subsection (g) of section 415 (relating to aggregation of
plans) is amended by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting
``Except as provided in subsection (f)(3), the Secretary''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 446. PROTECTION OF INVESTMENT OF EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO 401(K) PLANS.
(a) In General.--Section 1524(b) of the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Effective Date.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to elective
deferrals for plan years beginning after December 31, 1998.
``(2) Nonapplication to previously acquired property.--The
amendments made by this section shall not apply to any
elective deferral which is invested in assets consisting of
qualifying employer securities, qualifying employer real
property, or both, if such assets were acquired before
January 1, 1999.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply as if included in the provision of the Taxpayer
Relief Act of 1997 to which it relates.
SEC. 447. PERIODIC PENSION BENEFITS STATEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 105(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1025 (a)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)--
``(A) the administrator of an individual account plan shall
furnish a pension benefit statement--
``(i) to a plan participant at least once annually, and
``(ii) to a plan beneficiary upon written request, and
``(B) the administrator of a defined benefit plan shall
furnish a pension benefit statement--
``(i) at least once every 3 years to each participant with
a nonforfeitable accrued benefit who is employed by the
employer maintaining the plan at the time the statement is
furnished to participants, and
``(ii) to a plan participant or plan beneficiary of the
plan upon written request.
``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the administrator of a
plan to which more than 1 unaffiliated employer is required
to contribute shall only be required to furnish a pension
benefit statement under paragraph (1) upon the written
request of a participant or beneficiary of the plan.
``(3) A pension benefit statement under paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall indicate, on the basis of the latest available
information--
``(i) the total benefits accrued, and
``(ii) the nonforfeitable pension benefits, if any, which
have accrued, or the earliest date on which benefits will
become nonforfeitable,
``(B) shall be written in a manner calculated to be
understood by the average plan participant, and
``(C) may be provided in written, electronic, telephonic,
or other appropriate form.
``(4)(A) In the case of a defined benefit plan, the
requirements of paragraph (1)(B)(i) shall be treated as met
with respect to a participant if the administrator provides
the participant at least once each year with notice of the
availability of the pension benefit statement and the ways in
which the participant may obtain such statement. Such notice
shall be provided in written, electronic, telephonic, or
other appropriate form, and may be included with other
communications to the participant if done in a manner
reasonably designed to attract the attention of the
participant.
``(B) The Secretary may provide that years in which no
employee or former employee benefits (within the meaning of
section 410(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) under
the plan need not be taken into account in determining the 3-
year period under paragraph (1)(B)(i).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 105 of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1025) is amended by striking
subsection (d).
(2) Section 105(b) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1025(b)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) In no case shall a participant or beneficiary of a
plan be entitled to more than one statement described in
subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(1)(B)(ii), whichever is
applicable, in any 12-month period.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2001.
SEC. 448. PROHIBITED ALLOCATIONS OF STOCK IN S CORPORATION
ESOP.
(a) In General.--Section 409 (relating to qualifications
for tax credit employee stock ownership plans) is amended by
redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q) and by
inserting after subsection (o) the following new subsection:
``(p) Prohibited Allocations of Securities in an S
Corporation.--
``(1) In general.--An employee stock ownership plan holding
employer securities consisting of stock in an S corporation
shall provide that no portion of the assets of the plan
attributable to (or allocable in lieu of) such employer
securities may, during a nonallocation year, accrue (or be
allocated directly or indirectly under any plan of the
employer meeting the requirements of section 401(a)) for the
benefit of any disqualified person.
``(2) Failure to meet requirements.--
``(A) In general.--If a plan fails to meet the requirements
of paragraph (1), the plan shall be treated as having
distributed to any disqualified person the amount allocated
to the account of such person in violation of paragraph (1)
at the time of such allocation.
``(B) Cross reference.--
``For excise tax relating to violations of paragraph (1) and
ownership of synthetic equity, see section 4979A.
``(3) Nonallocation year.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `nonallocation year' means any
plan year of an employee stock ownership plan if, at any time
during such plan year--
``(i) such plan holds employer securities consisting of
stock in an S corporation, and
``(ii) disqualified persons own at least 50 percent of the
number of shares of stock in the S corporation.
``(B) Attribution rules.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)--
``(i) In general.--The rules of section 318(a) shall apply
for purposes of determining ownership, except that--
``(I) in applying paragraph (1) thereof, the members of an
individual's family shall include members of the family
described in paragraph (4)(D), and
``(II) paragraph (4) thereof shall not apply.
``(ii) Deemed-owned shares.--Notwithstanding the employee
trust exception in section 318(a)(2)(B)(i), an individual
shall be treated as owning deemed-owned shares of the
individual.
Solely for purposes of applying paragraph (5), this
subparagraph shall be applied after the attribution rules of
paragraph (5) have been applied.
``(4) Disqualified person.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `disqualified person' means any
person if--
``(i) the aggregate number of deemed-owned shares of such
person and the members of such person's family is at least 20
percent of the number of deemed-owned shares of stock in the
S corporation, or
``(ii) in the case of a person not described in clause (i),
the number of deemed-owned shares of such person is at least
10 percent of the number of deemed-owned shares of stock in
such corporation.
``(B) Treatment of family members.--In the case of a
disqualified person described in subparagraph (A)(i), any
member of such person's family with deemed-owned shares shall
be treated as a disqualified person if not otherwise treated
as a disqualified person under subparagraph (A).
``(C) Deemed-owned shares.--
``(i) In general.--The term `deemed-owned shares' means,
with respect to any person--
``(I) the stock in the S corporation constituting employer
securities of an employee stock ownership plan which is
allocated to such person under the plan, and
``(II) such person's share of the stock in such corporation
which is held by such plan but which is not allocated under
the plan to participants.
``(ii) Person's share of unallocated stock.--For purposes
of clause (i)(II), a person's share of unallocated S
corporation stock held by such plan is the amount of the
unallocated stock which would be allocated to such person if
the unallocated stock were allocated to all participants in
the same proportions as the most recent stock allocation
under the plan.
``(D) Member of family.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `member of the family' means, with respect to any
individual--
``(i) the spouse of the individual,
``(ii) an ancestor or lineal descendant of the individual
or the individual's spouse,
``(iii) a brother or sister of the individual or the
individual's spouse and any lineal descendant of the brother
or sister, and
``(iv) the spouse of any individual described in clause
(ii) or (iii).
A spouse of an individual who is legally separated from such
individual under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance
shall not be treated as such individual's spouse for purposes
of this subparagraph.
``(5) Treatment of synthetic equity.--For purposes of
paragraphs (3) and (4), in the case of a person who owns
synthetic equity in the S corporation, except to the extent
provided in regulations, the shares of stock in such
corporation on which such synthetic equity is based shall be
treated as outstanding stock in such corporation and deemed-
owned shares of such person if such treatment of synthetic
equity of 1 or more such persons results in--
``(A) the treatment of any person as a disqualified person,
or
``(B) the treatment of any year as a nonallocation year.
For purposes of this paragraph, synthetic equity shall be
treated as owned by a person in the
[[Page 24409]]
same manner as stock is treated as owned by a person under
the rules of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 318(a). If,
without regard to this paragraph, a person is treated as a
disqualified person or a year is treated as a nonallocation
year, this paragraph shall not be construed to result in the
person or year not being so treated.
``(6) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Employee stock ownership plan.--The term `employee
stock ownership plan' has the meaning given such term by
section 4975(e)(7).
``(B) Employer securities.--The term `employer security'
has the meaning given such term by section 409(l).
``(C) Synthetic equity.--The term `synthetic equity' means
any stock option, warrant, restricted stock, deferred
issuance stock right, or similar interest or right that gives
the holder the right to acquire or receive stock of the S
corporation in the future. Except to the extent provided in
regulations, synthetic equity also includes a stock
appreciation right, phantom stock unit, or similar right to a
future cash payment based on the value of such stock or
appreciation in such value.
``(7) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection.''.
(b) Coordination With Section 4975(e)(7).--The last
sentence of section 4975(e)(7) (defining employee stock
ownership plan) is amended by inserting ``, section 409(p),''
after ``409(n)''.
(c) Excise Tax.--
(1) Application of tax.--Subsection (a) of section 4979A
(relating to tax on certain prohibited allocations of
employer securities) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1); and
(B) by striking all that follows paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(3) there is any allocation of employer securities which
violates the provisions of section 409(p), or a nonallocation
year described in subsection (e)(2)(C) with respect to an
employee stock ownership plan, or
``(4) any synthetic equity is owned by a disqualified
person in any nonallocation year,
there is hereby imposed a tax on such allocation or ownership
equal to 50 percent of the amount involved.''.
(2) Liability.--Section 4979A(c) (defining liability for
tax) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Liability for Tax.--The tax imposed by this section
shall be paid--
``(1) in the case of an allocation referred to in paragraph
(1) or (2) of subsection (a), by--
``(A) the employer sponsoring such plan, or
``(B) the eligible worker-owned cooperative,
which made the written statement described in section
664(g)(1)(E) or in section 1042(b)(3)(B) (as the case may
be), and
``(2) in the case of an allocation or ownership referred to
in paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a), by the S
corporation the stock in which was so allocated or owned.''.
(3) Definitions.--Section 4979A(e) (relating to
definitions) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Definitions.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
terms used in this section have the same respective meanings
as when used in sections 409 and 4978.
``(2) Special rules relating to tax imposed by reason of
paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a).--
``(A) Prohibited allocations.--The amount involved with
respect to any tax imposed by reason of subsection (a)(3) is
the amount allocated to the account of any person in
violation of section 409(p)(1).
``(B) Synthetic equity.--The amount involved with respect
to any tax imposed by reason of subsection (a)(4) is the
value of the shares on which the synthetic equity is based.
``(C) Special rule during first nonallocation year.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), the amount involved for the
first nonallocation year of any employee stock ownership plan
shall be determined by taking into account the total value of
all the deemed-owned shares of all disqualified persons with
respect to such plan.
``(D) Statute of limitations.--The statutory period for the
assessment of any tax imposed by this section by reason of
paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) shall not expire
before the date which is 3 years from the later of--
``(i) the allocation or ownership referred to in such
paragraph giving rise to such tax, or
``(ii) the date on which the Secretary is notified of such
allocation or ownership.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2001.
(2) Exception for certain plans.--In the case of any--
(A) employee stock ownership plan established after July
11, 2000; or
(B) employee stock ownership plan established on or before
such date if employer securities held by the plan consist of
stock in a corporation with respect to which an election
under section 1362(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
not in effect on such date,
the amendments made by this section shall apply to plan years
ending after July 11, 2000.
Subtitle F--Reducing Regulatory Burdens
SEC. 451. MODIFICATION OF TIMING OF PLAN VALUATIONS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (9) of section 412(c) (relating
to annual valuation) is amended to read as follows:
``(9) Annual valuation.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, a
determination of experience gains and losses and a valuation
of the plan's liability shall be made not less frequently
than once every year, except that such determination shall be
made more frequently to the extent required in particular
cases under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(B) Valuation date.--
``(i) Current year.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
valuation referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be made as of
a date within the plan year to which the valuation refers or
within one month prior to the beginning of such year.
``(ii) Election to use prior year valuation.--The valuation
referred to in subparagraph (A) may be made as of a date
within the plan year prior to the year to which the valuation
refers if--
``(I) an election is in effect under this clause with
respect to the plan, and
``(II) as of such date, the value of the assets of the plan
are not less than 125 percent of the plan's current liability
(as defined in paragraph (7)(B)).
``(iii) Adjustments.--Information under clause (ii) shall,
in accordance with regulations, be actuarially adjusted to
reflect significant differences in participants.
``(iv) Election.--An election under clause (ii), once made,
shall be irrevocable without the consent of the Secretary.''.
(b) Amendment of ERISA.--Paragraph (9) of section 302(c) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1053(c)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(9)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the valuation
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be made as of a date
within the plan year to which the valuation refers or within
one month prior to the beginning of such year.
``(ii) The valuation referred to in subparagraph (A) may be
made as of a date within the plan year prior to the year to
which the valuation refers if--
``(I) an election is in effect under this clause with
respect to the plan; and
``(II) as of such date, the value of the assets of the plan
are not less than 125 percent of the plan's current liability
(as defined in paragraph (7)(B)).
``(iii) Information under clause (ii) shall, in accordance
with regulations, be actuarially adjusted to reflect
significant differences in participants.
``(iv) An election under clause (ii), once made, shall be
irrevocable without the consent of the Secretary of the
Treasury.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 452. ESOP DIVIDENDS MAY BE REINVESTED WITHOUT LOSS OF
DIVIDEND DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Section 404(k)(2)(A) (defining applicable
dividends) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause
(ii), by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv), and by
inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:
``(iii) is, at the election of such participants or their
beneficiaries--
``(I) payable as provided in clause (i) or (ii), or
``(II) paid to the plan and reinvested in qualifying
employer securities, or''.
(b) Standard for Disallowance.--Section 404(k)(5)(A)
(relating to disallowance of deduction) is amended by
inserting ``avoidance or'' before ``evasion''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 453. REPEAL OF TRANSITION RULE RELATING TO CERTAIN
HIGHLY COMPENSATED EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 1114(c) of the
Tax Reform Act of 1986 is hereby repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a)
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 454. EMPLOYEES OF TAX-EXEMPT ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall modify
Treasury Regulations section 1.410(b)-6(g) to provide that
employees of an organization described in section
403(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 who are
eligible to make contributions under section 403(b) of such
Code pursuant to a salary reduction agreement may be treated
as excludable with respect to a plan under section 401(k) or
(m) of such Code that is provided under the same general
arrangement as a plan under such section 401(k), if--
(1) no employee of an organization described in section
403(b)(1)(A)(i) of such Code is eligible to participate in
such section 401(k) plan or section 401(m) plan; and
(2) 95 percent of the employees who are not employees of an
organization described in section 403(b)(1)(A)(i) of such
Code are eligible to participate in such plan under such
section 401(k) or (m).
(b) Effective Date.--The modification required by
subsection (a) shall apply as of the same date set forth in
section 1426(b) of the Small Business Job Protection Act of
1996.
SEC. 455. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF EMPLOYER-PROVIDED
RETIREMENT ADVICE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 132 (relating to
exclusion from gross income) is amended by striking ``or'' at
the end of paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end
of paragraph (6) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
[[Page 24410]]
``(7) qualified retirement planning services.''.
(b) Qualified Retirement Planning Services Defined.--
Section 132 is amended by redesignating subsection (m) as
subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the
following:
``(m) Qualified Retirement Planning Services.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`qualified retirement planning services' means any retirement
planning advice or information provided to an employee and
his spouse by an employer maintaining a qualified employer
plan.
``(2) Nondiscrimination rule.--Subsection (a)(7) shall
apply in the case of highly compensated employees only if
such services are available on substantially the same terms
to each member of the group of employees normally provided
education and information regarding the employer's qualified
employer plan.
``(3) Qualified employer plan.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `qualified employer plan' means a plan,
contract, pension, or account described in section
219(g)(5).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 456. REPORTING SIMPLIFICATION.
(a) Simplified Annual Filing Requirement for Owners and
Their Spouses.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall modify
the requirements for filing annual returns with respect to
one-participant retirement plans to ensure that such plans
with assets of $250,000 or less as of the close of the plan
year need not file a return for that year.
(2) One-participant retirement plan defined.--For purposes
of this subsection, the term ``one-participant retirement
plan'' means a retirement plan that--
(A) on the first day of the plan year--
(i) covered only the employer (and the employer's spouse)
and the employer owned the entire business (whether or not
incorporated); or
(ii) covered only one or more partners (and their spouses)
in a business partnership (including partners in an S or C
corporation);
(B) meets the minimum coverage requirements of section
410(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 without being
combined with any other plan of the business that covers the
employees of the business;
(C) does not provide benefits to anyone except the employer
(and the employer's spouse) or the partners (and their
spouses);
(D) does not cover a business that is a member of an
affiliated service group, a controlled group of corporations,
or a group of businesses under common control; and
(E) does not cover a business that leases employees.
(3) Other definitions.--Terms used in paragraph (2) which
are also used in section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 shall have the respective meanings given such terms by
such section.
(b) Simplified Annual Filing Requirement for Plans With
Fewer Than 25 Employees.--In the case of plan years beginning
after December 31, 2001, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
provide for the filing of a simplified annual return for any
retirement plan which covers less than 25 employees on the
first day of a plan year and meets the requirements described
in subparagraphs (B), (D), and (E) of subsection (a)(2).
(c) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
take effect on January 1, 2001.
SEC. 457. IMPROVEMENT OF EMPLOYEE PLANS COMPLIANCE RESOLUTION
SYSTEM.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall continue to update and
improve the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (or
any successor program) giving special attention to--
(1) increasing the awareness and knowledge of small
employers concerning the availability and use of the program;
(2) taking into account special concerns and circumstances
that small employers face with respect to compliance and
correction of compliance failures;
(3) extending the duration of the self-correction period
under the Administrative Policy Regarding Self-Correction for
significant compliance failures;
(4) expanding the availability to correct insignificant
compliance failures under the Administrative Policy Regarding
Self-Correction during audit; and
(5) assuring that any tax, penalty, or sanction that is
imposed by reason of a compliance failure is not excessive
and bears a reasonable relationship to the nature, extent,
and severity of the failure.
SEC. 458. REPEAL OF THE MULTIPLE USE TEST.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (9) of section 401(m) is amended
to read as follows:
``(9) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection and subsection (k), including regulations
permitting appropriate aggregation of plans and
contributions.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 459. FLEXIBILITY IN NONDISCRIMINATION, COVERAGE, AND
LINE OF BUSINESS RULES.
(a) Nondiscrimination.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, by
regulation, provide that a plan shall be deemed to satisfy
the requirements of section 401(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 if such plan satisfies the facts and
circumstances test under section 401(a)(4) of such Code, as
in effect before January 1, 1994, but only if--
(A) the plan satisfies conditions prescribed by the
Secretary to appropriately limit the availability of such
test; and
(B) the plan is submitted to the Secretary for a
determination of whether it satisfies such test.
Subparagraph (B) shall only apply to the extent provided by
the Secretary.
(2) Effective dates.--
(A) Regulations.--The regulation required by paragraph (1)
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2002.
(B) Conditions of availability.--Any condition of
availability prescribed by the Secretary under paragraph
(1)(A) shall not apply before the first year beginning not
less than 120 days after the date on which such condition is
prescribed.
(b) Coverage Test.--
(1) In general.--Section 410(b)(1) (relating to minimum
coverage requirements) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) In the case that the plan fails to meet the
requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C), the plan--
``(i) satisfies subparagraph (B), as in effect immediately
before the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986,
``(ii) is submitted to the Secretary for a determination of
whether it satisfies the requirement described in clause (i),
and
``(iii) satisfies conditions prescribed by the Secretary by
regulation that appropriately limit the availability of this
subparagraph.
Clause (ii) shall apply only to the extent provided by the
Secretary.''.
(2) Effective dates.--
(A) In general.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall
apply to years beginning after December 31, 2002.
(B) Conditions of availability.--Any condition of
availability prescribed by the Secretary under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary under section 410(b)(1)(D) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not apply before the
first year beginning not less than 120 days after the date on
which such condition is prescribed.
(c) Line of Business Rules.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall, on or before December 31, 2002, modify the existing
regulations issued under section 414(r) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 in order to expand (to the extent that
the Secretary determines appropriate) the ability of a
pension plan to demonstrate compliance with the line of
business requirements based upon the facts and circumstances
surrounding the design and operation of the plan, even though
the plan is unable to satisfy the mechanical tests currently
used to determine compliance.
SEC. 460. EXTENSION TO ALL GOVERNMENTAL PLANS OF MORATORIUM
ON APPLICATION OF CERTAIN NONDISCRIMINATION
RULES APPLICABLE TO STATE AND LOCAL PLANS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Subparagraph (G) of section 401(a)(5) and subparagraph
(H) of section 401(a)(26) are each amended by striking
``section 414(d))'' and all that follows and inserting
``section 414(d)).''.
(2) Subparagraph (G) of section 401(k)(3) and paragraph (2)
of section 1505(d) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are
each amended by striking ``maintained by a State or local
government or political subdivision thereof (or agency or
instrumentality thereof)''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The heading for subparagraph (G) of section 401(a)(5)
is amended to read as follows: ``Governmental plans''.
(2) The heading for subparagraph (H) of section 401(a)(26)
is amended to read as follows: ``Exception for governmental
plans''.
(3) Subparagraph (G) of section 401(k)(3) is amended by
inserting ``Governmental plans.--'' after ``(G)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 461. NOTICE AND CONSENT PERIOD REGARDING DISTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Expansion of Period.--
(1) Amendment of internal revenue code.--
(A) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 417(a)(6) is
amended by striking ``90-day'' and inserting ``180-day''.
(B) Modification of regulations.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall modify the regulations under sections 402(f),
411(a)(11), and 417 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
substitute ``180 days'' for ``90 days'' each place it appears
in Treasury Regulations sections 1.402(f)-1, 1.411(a)-11(c),
and 1.417(e)-1(b).
(2) Amendment of erisa.--Section 205(c)(7)(A) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1055(c)(7)(A)) is amended by striking ``90-day'' and
inserting ``180-day''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph
(1)(A) and (2) and the modifications required by paragraph
(1)(B) shall apply to years beginning after December 31,
2000.
(b) Consent Regulation Inapplicable to Certain
Distributions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall modify
the regulations under section 411(a)(11) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the description of a
participant's right, if any, to defer receipt of a
distribution shall also describe the consequences of failing
to defer such receipt.
(2) Effective date.--The modifications required by
paragraph (1) shall apply to years beginning after December
31, 2000.
(c) Disclosure of Optional Forms of Benefits.--
(1) Regulations.--
[[Page 24411]]
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, not
later than December 31, 2001, issue final regulations under
section 417(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which
provide that if--
(i) a defined benefit plan offers both a qualified joint
and survivor annuity and a single sum optional form of
benefit, and
(ii) the distributable amount under such single sum option
is less than the present value (determined in accordance with
section 417(e) of such Code) of the qualified joint and
survivor annuity commencing as of the same annuity starting
date, the written explanation required by section
417(a)(3)(A) of such Code shall include sufficient
information to allow the participant to understand the
difference between the amount of the single sum and such
present value.
(B) Unmarried participants.--If the plan offers an
unmarried participant one or more annuity options that are
substantially more valuable than the qualified joint and
survivor annuity offered by the plan, the comparison required
under subparagraph (A) shall be made between the single sum
option and the most valuable of the other annuity options
offered by the plan.
(C) Form.--Any information required under this paragraph
shall be provided in a manner calculated to be reasonably
understood by the average plan participant.
(2) Effective date.--Regulations issued under paragraph (1)
shall only apply to distributions made not earlier than 6
months after the date such regulations are issued.
SEC. 462. ANNUAL REPORT DISSEMINATION.
(a) Report Available Through Electronic Means.--Section
104(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1024(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``The requirement to furnish
information under the previous sentence shall be satisfied if
the administrator makes such information reasonably available
through electronic means or other new technology.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to reports for years beginning after December 31,
1999.
SEC. 463. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO SAVER ACT.
Section 517 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1147) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2001 and 2005 on or
after September 1 of each year involved'' and inserting
``2001, 2005, and 2009 in the month of September of each year
involved'';
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``To effectuate the purposes of this paragraph,
the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement,
pursuant to the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
of 1977 (31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), with the American Savings
Education Council.'';
(3) in subsection (e)(2)--
(A) by striking ``Committee on Labor and Human Resources''
in subparagraph (D) and inserting ``Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions'';
(B) by striking subparagraph (F) and inserting the
following:
``(F) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;'';
(C) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (J);
and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(G) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on
Finance of the Senate;
``(H) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on
Ways and Means of the House of Representatives;
``(I) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Employer-Employee Relations of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce of the House of Representatives; and'';
(4) in subsection (e)(3)(A)--
(A) by striking ``There shall be no more than 200
additional participants.'' and inserting ``The participants
in the National Summit shall also include additional
participants appointed under this subparagraph.'';
(B) by striking ``one-half shall be appointed by the
President,'' in clause (i) and inserting ``not more than 100
participants shall be appointed under this clause by the
President,'', and by striking ``and'' at the end of clause
(i);
(C) by striking ``one-half shall be appointed by the
elected leaders of Congress'' in clause (ii) and inserting
``not more than 100 participants shall be appointed under
this clause by the elected leaders of Congress'', and by
striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting
``; and'';
(D) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) The President, in consultation with the elected
leaders of Congress referred to in subsection (a), may
appoint under this clause additional participants to the
National Summit. The number of such additional participants
appointed under this clause may not exceed the lesser of 3
percent of the total number of all additional participants
appointed under this paragraph, or 10. Such additional
participants shall be appointed from persons nominated by the
organization referred to in subsection (b)(2) which is made
up of private sector businesses and associations partnered
with Government entities to promote long term financial
security in retirement through savings and with which the
Secretary is required thereunder to consult and cooperate and
shall not be Federal, State, or local government
employees.'';
(5) in subsection (e)(3)(B), by striking ``January 31,
1998'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting ``May 1, 2001, May
1, 2005, and May 1, 2009, for each of the subsequent summits,
respectively'';
(6) in subsection (f)(1)(C), by inserting ``, no later than
90 days prior to the date of the commencement of the National
Summit,'' after ``comment'' in paragraph (1)(C);
(7) in subsection (g), by inserting ``, in consultation
with the congressional leaders specified in subsection
(e)(2),'' after ``report'';
(8) in subsection (i)--
(A) by striking ``beginning on or after October 1, 1997''
in paragraph (1) and inserting ``2001, 2005, and 2009''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Reception and representation authority.--The
Secretary is hereby granted reception and representation
authority limited specifically to the events at the National
Summit. The Secretary shall use any private contributions
accepted in connection with the National Summit prior to
using funds appropriated for purposes of the National Summit
pursuant to this paragraph.''; and
(9) in subsection (k)--
(A) by striking ``shall enter into a contract on a sole-
source basis'' and inserting ``may enter into a contract on a
sole-source basis''; and
(B) by striking ``fiscal year 1998'' and inserting ``fiscal
years 2001, 2005, and 2009''.
SEC. 464. STUDY OF PENSION COVERAGE.
Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit a report
to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a
report on the effect of the provisions of the Retirement
Savings and Pension Coverage Act of 2000 on pension coverage,
including--
(1) any expansion of coverage for low- and middle-income
workers;
(2) levels of pension benefits;
(3) quality of pension coverage;
(4) worker's access to and participation in plans; and
(5) retirement security.
Subtitle G--Other ERISA Provisions
SEC. 471. MISSING PARTICIPANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 4050 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1350) is amended by
redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e) and by
inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
``(c) Multiemployer Plans.--The corporation shall prescribe
rules similar to the rules in subsection (a) for
multiemployer plans covered by this title that terminate
under section 4041A.
``(d) Plans Not Otherwise Subject to Title.--
``(1) Transfer to corporation.--The plan administrator of a
plan described in paragraph (4) may elect to transfer a
missing participant's benefits to the corporation upon
termination of the plan.
``(2) Information to the corporation.--To the extent
provided in regulations, the plan administrator of a plan
described in paragraph (4) shall, upon termination of the
plan, provide the corporation information with respect to
benefits of a missing participant if the plan transfers such
benefits--
``(A) to the corporation, or
``(B) to an entity other than the corporation or a plan
described in paragraph (4)(B)(ii).
``(3) Payment by the corporation.--If benefits of a missing
participant were transferred to the corporation under
paragraph (1), the corporation shall, upon location of the
participant or beneficiary, pay to the participant or
beneficiary the amount transferred (or the appropriate
survivor benefit) either--
``(A) in a single sum (plus interest), or
``(B) in such other form as is specified in regulations of
the corporation.
``(4) Plans described.--A plan is described in this
paragraph if--
``(A) the plan is a pension plan (within the meaning of
section 3(2))--
``(i) to which the provisions of this section do not apply
(without regard to this subsection), and
``(ii) which is not a plan described in paragraphs (2)
through (11) of section 4021(b), and
``(B) at the time the assets are to be distributed upon
termination, the plan--
``(i) has missing participants, and
``(ii) has not provided for the transfer of assets to pay
the benefits of all missing participants to another pension
plan (within the meaning of section 3(2)).
``(5) Certain provisions not to apply.--Subsections (a)(1)
and (a)(3) shall not apply to a plan described in paragraph
(4).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distributions made after final regulations
implementing subsections (c) and (d) of section 4050 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (as added by
subsection (a)), respectively, are prescribed.
SEC. 472. REDUCED PBGC PREMIUM FOR NEW PLANS OF SMALL
EMPLOYERS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 4006(a)(3) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1306(a)(3)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by inserting ``other than a new single-
employer plan (as defined in subparagraph (F)) maintained by
a small employer (as so defined),'' after ``single-employer
plan,'',
[[Page 24412]]
(2) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``, and'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) in the case of a new single-employer plan (as
defined in subparagraph (F)) maintained by a small employer
(as so defined) for the plan year, $5 for each individual who
is a participant in such plan during the plan year.''.
(b) Definition of New Single-Employer Plan.--Section
4006(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1306(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(F)(i) For purposes of this paragraph, a single-employer
plan maintained by a contributing sponsor shall be treated as
a new single-employer plan for each of its first 5 plan years
if, during the 36-month period ending on the date of the
adoption of such plan, the sponsor or any member of such
sponsor's controlled group (or any predecessor of either) did
not establish or maintain a plan to which this title applies
with respect to which benefits were accrued for substantially
the same employees as are in the new single-employer plan.
``(ii)(I) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `small
employer' means an employer which on the first day of any
plan year has, in aggregation with all members of the
controlled group of such employer, 100 or fewer employees.
``(II) In the case of a plan maintained by two or more
contributing sponsors that are not part of the same
controlled group, the employees of all contributing sponsors
and controlled groups of such sponsors shall be aggregated
for purposes of determining whether any contributing sponsor
is a small employer.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plans established after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 473. REDUCTION OF ADDITIONAL PBGC PREMIUM FOR NEW AND
SMALL PLANS.
(a) New Plans.--Subparagraph (E) of section 4006(a)(3) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1306(a)(3)(E)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(v) In the case of a new defined benefit plan, the amount
determined under clause (ii) for any plan year shall be an
amount equal to the product of the amount determined under
clause (ii) and the applicable percentage. For purposes of
this clause, the term `applicable percentage' means--
``(I) 0 percent, for the first plan year.
``(II) 20 percent, for the second plan year.
``(III) 40 percent, for the third plan year.
``(IV) 60 percent, for the fourth plan year.
``(V) 80 percent, for the fifth plan year.
For purposes of this clause, a defined benefit plan (as
defined in section 3(35)) maintained by a contributing
sponsor shall be treated as a new defined benefit plan for
each of its first 5 plan years if, during the 36-month period
ending on the date of the adoption of the plan, the sponsor
and each member of any controlled group including the sponsor
(or any predecessor of either) did not establish or maintain
a plan to which this title applies with respect to which
benefits were accrued for substantially the same employees as
are in the new plan.''.
(b) Small Plans.--Paragraph (3) of section 4006(a) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1306(a)), as amended by section 472(b), is amended--
(1) by striking ``The'' in subparagraph (E)(i) and
inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph (G), the'',
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new
subparagraph:
``(G)(i) In the case of an employer who has 25 or fewer
employees on the first day of the plan year, the additional
premium determined under subparagraph (E) for each
participant shall not exceed $5 multiplied by the number of
participants in the plan as of the close of the preceding
plan year.
``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), whether an employer has
25 or fewer employees on the first day of the plan year is
determined taking into consideration all of the employees of
all members of the contributing sponsor's controlled group.
In the case of a plan maintained by two or more contributing
sponsors, the employees of all contributing sponsors and
their controlled groups shall be aggregated for purposes of
determining whether the 25-or-fewer-employees limitation has
been satisfied.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Subsection (a).--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to plans established after December 31, 2000.
(2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 474. AUTHORIZATION FOR PBGC TO PAY INTEREST ON PREMIUM
OVERPAYMENT REFUNDS.
(a) In General.--Section 4007(b) of the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1307(b)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(b)'' and inserting ``(b)(1)'', and
(2) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The corporation is authorized to pay, subject to
regulations prescribed by the corporation, interest on the
amount of any overpayment of premium refunded to a designated
payor. Interest under this paragraph shall be calculated at
the same rate and in the same manner as interest is
calculated for underpayments under paragraph (1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to interest accruing for periods beginning not
earlier than the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 475. SUBSTANTIAL OWNER BENEFITS IN TERMINATED PLANS.
(a) Modification of Phase-In of Guarantee.--Section
4022(b)(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1322(b)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
``(5)(A) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `majority
owner' means an individual who, at any time during the 60-
month period ending on the date the determination is being
made--
``(i) owns the entire interest in an unincorporated trade
or business,
``(ii) in the case of a partnership, is a partner who owns,
directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more of either the
capital interest or the profits interest in such partnership,
or
``(iii) in the case of a corporation, owns, directly or
indirectly, 50 percent or more in value of either the voting
stock of that corporation or all the stock of that
corporation.
For purposes of clause (iii), the constructive ownership
rules of section 1563(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
shall apply (determined without regard to section
1563(e)(3)(C)).
``(B) In the case of a participant who is a majority owner,
the amount of benefits guaranteed under this section shall
equal the product of--
``(i) a fraction (not to exceed 1) the numerator of which
is the number of years from the later of the effective date
or the adoption date of the plan to the termination date, and
the denominator of which is 10, and
``(ii) the amount of benefits that would be guaranteed
under this section if the participant were not a majority
owner.''.
(b) Modification of Allocation of Assets.--
(1) Section 4044(a)(4)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1344(a)(4)(B)) is amended by
striking ``section 4022(b)(5)'' and inserting ``section
4022(b)(5)(B)''.
(2) Section 4044(b) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1344(b)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``(5)'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``(4), (5),'', and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as
paragraphs (4) through (7), respectively, and by inserting
after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
``(3) If assets available for allocation under paragraph
(4) of subsection (a) are insufficient to satisfy in full the
benefits of all individuals who are described in that
paragraph, the assets shall be allocated first to benefits
described in subparagraph (A) of that paragraph. Any
remaining assets shall then be allocated to benefits
described in subparagraph (B) of that paragraph. If assets
allocated to such subparagraph (B) are insufficient to
satisfy in full the benefits described in that subparagraph,
the assets shall be allocated pro rata among individuals on
the basis of the present value (as of the termination date)
of their respective benefits described in that
subparagraph.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 4021 of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1321) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(9), by striking ``as defined in
section 4022(b)(6)'', and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) For purposes of subsection (b)(9), the term
`substantial owner' means an individual who, at any time
during the 60-month period ending on the date the
determination is being made--
``(1) owns the entire interest in an unincorporated trade
or business,
``(2) in the case of a partnership, is a partner who owns,
directly or indirectly, more than 10 percent of either the
capital interest or the profits interest in such partnership,
or
``(3) in the case of a corporation, owns, directly or
indirectly, more than 10 percent in value of either the
voting stock of that corporation or all the stock of that
corporation.
For purposes of paragraph (3), the constructive ownership
rules of section 1563(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
shall apply (determined without regard to section
1563(e)(3)(C)).''.
(2) Section 4043(c)(7) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1343(c)(7))
is amended by striking ``section 4022(b)(6)'' and inserting
``section 4021(d)''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to plan
terminations--
(A) under section 4041(c) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1341(c)) with respect to
which notices of intent to terminate are provided under
section 4041(a)(2) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1341(a)(2)) after
December 31, 2000, and
(B) under section 4042 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1342) with
respect to which proceedings are instituted by the
corporation after such date.
(2) Conforming amendments.--The amendments made by
subsection (c) shall take effect on January 1, 2001.
SEC. 476. MULTIEMPLOYER PLAN BENEFITS GUARANTEE.
(a) In General.--Section 4022A(c) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1322A(c))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``$5'' each place it appears in paragraph
(1) and inserting ``$11'',
(2) by striking ``$15'' in paragraph (1) and inserting
``$33'', and
(3) by striking paragraphs (2), (5), and (6) and by
redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and
(3), respectively.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4244(e)(4) of such Act
(29 U.S.C. 1424(e)(4)) is
[[Page 24413]]
amended by striking ``and without regard to section
4022A(c)(2)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to benefits payable after the date of the
enactment of this Act, except that such amendments shall not
apply to any multiemployer plan that has received financial
assistance (within the meaning of section 4261 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) within the
1-year period ending on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 477. CIVIL PENALTIES FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
RESPONSIBILITY.
(a) Imposition and Amount of Penalty Made Discretionary.--
Section 502(l)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132(l)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may'', and
(2) by striking ``equal to'' and inserting ``not greater
than''.
(b) Applicable Recovery Amount.--Section 502(l)(2) of such
Act (29 U.S.C. 1132(l)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `applicable
recovery amount' means any amount which is recovered from any
fiduciary or other person (or from any other person on behalf
of any such fiduciary or other person) with respect to a
breach or violation described in paragraph (1) on or after
the 30th day following receipt by such fiduciary or other
person of written notice from the Secretary of the violation,
whether paid voluntarily or by order of a court in a judicial
proceeding instituted by the Secretary under subsection
(a)(2) or (a)(5). The Secretary may, in the Secretary's sole
discretion, extend the 30-day period described in the
preceding sentence.''.
(c) Other Rules.--Section 502(l) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132(l)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) A person shall be jointly and severally liable for
the penalty described in paragraph (1) to the same extent
that such person is jointly and severally liable for the
applicable recovery amount on which the penalty is based.
``(6) No penalty shall be assessed under this subsection
unless the person against whom the penalty is assessed is
given notice and opportunity for a hearing with respect to
the violation and applicable recovery amount.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to any breach of fiduciary responsibility or other
violation of part 4 of subtitle B of title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 occurring on or after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Transition rule.--In applying the amendment made by
subsection (b) (relating to applicable recovery amount), a
breach or other violation occurring before the date of
enactment of this Act which continues after the 180th day
after such date (and which may have been discontinued at any
time during its existence) shall be treated as having
occurred after such date of enactment.
SEC. 478. BENEFIT SUSPENSION NOTICE.
(a) Modification of Regulation.--The Secretary of Labor
shall modify the regulation under section 203(a)(3)(B) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C.
1053(a)(3)(B)) to provide that the notification required by
such regulation--
(1) in the case of an employee who returns to work for a
former employer after commencement of payment of benefits
under the plan shall--
(A) be made during the first calendar month or payroll
period in which the plan withholds payments, and
(B) if a reduced rate of future benefit accruals will apply
to the returning employee (as of the first date of
participation in the plan by the employee after returning to
work), include a statement that the rate of future benefit
accruals will be reduced, and
(2) in the case of any employee who is not described in
paragraph (1)--
(A) may be included in the summary plan description for the
plan furnished in accordance with section 104(b) of such Act
(29 U.S.C. 1024(b)), rather than in a separate notice, and
(B) need not include a copy of the relevant plan
provisions.
(b) Effective Date.--The modification made under this
section shall apply to plan years beginning after December
31, 2000.
Subtitle H--Plan Amendments
SEC. 481. PROVISIONS RELATING TO PLAN AMENDMENTS.
(a) In General.--If this section applies to any plan or
contract amendment--
(1) such plan or contract shall be treated as being
operated in accordance with the terms of the plan during the
period described in subsection (b)(2)(A); and
(2) except as provided by the Secretary of the Treasury,
such plan shall not fail to meet the requirements of section
411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or section
204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
by reason of such amendment.
(b) Amendments to Which Section Applies.--
(1) In general.--This section shall apply to any amendment
to any plan or annuity contract which is made--
(A) pursuant to any amendment made by this title, or
pursuant to any regulation issued under this title; and
(B) on or before the last day of the first plan year
beginning on or after January 1, 2003.
In the case of a governmental plan (as defined in section
414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), this paragraph
shall be applied by substituting ``2005'' for ``2003''.
(2) Conditions.--This section shall not apply to any
amendment unless--
(A) during the period--
(i) beginning on the date the legislative or regulatory
amendment described in paragraph (1)(A) takes effect (or in
the case of a plan or contract amendment not required by such
legislative or regulatory amendment, the effective date
specified by the plan); and
(ii) ending on the date described in paragraph (1)(B) (or,
if earlier, the date the plan or contract amendment is
adopted),
the plan or contract is operated as if such plan or contract
amendment were in effect; and
(B) such plan or contract amendment applies retroactively
for such period.
TITLE V--SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN ARBITRAGE REBATE EXCEPTION
FOR GOVERNMENTAL BONDS USED TO FINANCE
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 148(f )(4)(D)(vii) (relating to
increase in exception for bonds financing public school
capital expenditures) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000''
the second place it appears and inserting ``$10,000,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 502. MODIFICATION OF ARBITRAGE REBATE RULES APPLICABLE
TO PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 148(f )(4) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(xviii) 4-year spending requirement for public school
construction issue.--
``(I) In general.--In the case of a public school
construction issue, the spending requirements of clause (ii)
shall be treated as met if at least 10 percent of the
available construction proceeds of the construction issue are
spent for the governmental purposes of the issue within the
1-year period beginning on the date the bonds are issued, 30
percent of such proceeds are spent for such purposes within
the 2-year period beginning on such date, 60 percent of such
proceeds are spent for such purposes within the 3-year period
beginning on such date, and 100 percent of such proceeds are
spent for such purposes within the 4-year period beginning on
such date.
``(II) Public school construction issue.--For purposes of
this clause, the term `public school construction issue'
means any construction issue if no bond which is part of such
issue is a private activity bond and all of the available
construction proceeds of such issue are to be used for the
construction (as defined in clause (iv)) of public school
facilities to provide education or training below the
postsecondary level or for the acquisition of land that is
functionally related and subordinate to such facilities.
``(III) Other rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of the preceding provisions of this subparagraph which apply
to clause (ii) also apply to this clause.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 503. MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL ARBITRAGE RULE FOR CERTAIN
FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 648 of the Tax
Reform Act of 1984 is amended to read as follows:
``(1) such securities or obligations are held in a fund--
``(A) which, except to the extent of the investment
earnings on such securities or obligations, cannot be used,
under State constitutional or statutory restrictions
continuously in effect since October 9, 1969, through the
date of issue of the bond issue, to pay debt service on the
bond issue or to finance the facilities that are to be
financed with the proceeds of the bonds, or
``(B) the annual distributions from which cannot exceed 7
percent of the average fair market value of the assets held
in such fund except to the extent distributions are necessary
to pay debt service on the bond issue,''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (3) of such section is
amended by striking ``the investment earnings of'' and
inserting ``distributions from''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2001.
SEC. 504. TREATMENT OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL FACILITY
BONDS AS EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS.
(a) Treatment as Exempt Facility Bond.--Subsection (a) of
section 142 (relating to exempt facility bond) is amended by
striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, or'',
and by adding at the end the following:
``(13) qualified public educational facilities.''
(b) Qualified Public Educational Facilities.--Section 142
(relating to exempt facility bond) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(k) Qualified Public Educational Facilities.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(13), the
term `qualified public educational facility' means any school
facility which is--
``(A) part of a public elementary school or a public
secondary school, and
``(B) owned by a private, for-profit corporation pursuant
to a public-private partnership agreement with a State or
local educational agency described in paragraph (2).
[[Page 24414]]
``(2) Public-private partnership agreement described.--A
public-private partnership agreement is described in this
paragraph if it is an agreement--
``(A) under which the corporation agrees--
``(i) to do 1 or more of the following: construct,
rehabilitate, refurbish, or equip a school facility, and
``(ii) at the end of the term of the agreement, to transfer
the school facility to such agency for no additional
consideration, and
``(B) the term of which does not exceed the term of the
issue to be used to provide the school facility.
``(3) School facility.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `school facility' means--
``(A) school buildings,
``(B) functionally related and subordinate facilities and
land with respect to such buildings, including any stadium or
other facility primarily used for school events, and
``(C) any property, to which section 168 applies (or would
apply but for section 179), for use in the facility.
``(4) Public schools.--For purposes of this subsection, the
terms `elementary school' and `secondary school' have the
meanings given such terms by section 14101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801), as in
effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
``(5) Annual aggregate face amount of tax-exempt
financing.--
``(A) In general.--An issue shall not be treated as an
issue described in subsection (a)(13) if the aggregate face
amount of bonds issued by the State pursuant thereto (when
added to the aggregate face amount of bonds previously so
issued during the calendar year) exceeds an amount equal to
the greater of--
``(i) $10 multiplied by the State population, or
``(ii) $5,000,000.
``(B) Allocation rules.--
``(i) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subparagraph, the State may allocate in a calendar year the
amount described in subparagraph (A) for such year in such
manner as the State determines appropriate.
``(ii) Rules for carryforward of unused amount.--With
respect to any calendar year, a State may make an election
under rules similar to the rules of section 146(f), except
that the sole carryforward purpose with respect to such
election is the issuance of exempt facility bonds described
in section 142(a)(13).''
(c) Exemption From General State Volume Caps.--Paragraph
(3) of section 146(g) (relating to exception for certain
bonds) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or (12)'' and inserting ``(12), or
(13)'', and
(2) by striking ``and environmental enhancements of
hydroelectric generating facilities'' and inserting
``environmental enhancements of hydroelectric generating
facilities, and qualified public educational facilities''.
(d) Exemption From Limitation on Use for Land
Acquisition.--Section 147(h) (relating to certain rules not
to apply to mortgage revenue bonds, qualified student loan
bonds, and qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Exempt facility bonds for qualified public-private
schools.--Subsection (c) shall not apply to any exempt
facility bond issued as part of an issue described in section
142(a)(13) (relating to qualified public-private schools).''
(e) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of section 147(h) is
amended by striking ``Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Qualified
Student Loan Bonds, and Qualified 501(c)(3) Bonds'' in the
heading and inserting ``Certain Bonds''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 505. EXPANSION OF QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BOND PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--So much of part IV of subchapter U of
chapter 1 (relating to incentives for education zones) as
precedes subsection (d) of section 1397E is amended to read
as follows:
``PART IV--EDUCATION BOND PROVISIONS
``Sec. 1397E. Credit to holders of qualified zone academy bonds.
``Sec. 1397F. Qualified zone academy bond defined.
``Sec. 1397G. Authorization of additional qualified zone academy bonds
without targeting and private partnership requirements.
``SEC. 1397E. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY
BONDS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible
taxpayer who holds a qualified zone academy bond on a credit
allowance date of such bond which occurs during the taxable
year, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax
imposed by this chapter for such taxable year an amount equal
to the sum of the credits determined under subsection (b)
with respect to credit allowance dates during such year on
which the taxpayer holds such bond.
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance
date for a qualified zone academy bond is 25 percent of the
annual credit determined with respect to such bond.
``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any qualified zone academy bond is the product
of--
``(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
``(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable credit rate with respect to an issue is
the rate equal to an average market yield (as of the day
before the day that the issue is sold) on outstanding long-
term corporate debt obligations (determined under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary).
``(4) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period
ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit
determined under this subsection with respect to such credit
allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit
otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month
period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule
shall apply when the bond is redeemed.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under part IV of
subchapter A (other than subpart C thereof, relating to
refundable credits).
``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable
under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by
paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified zone academy bond.--The term `qualified
zone academy bond' has the meaning given to such term by
section 1397F; except that such term shall also include any
bond treated as a qualified zone academy bond under section
1397G. Such term shall not include any bond which is part of
an issue unless such issue meets the requirements of
subsection (g).
``(2) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance
date' means--
``(A) March 15,
``(B) June 15,
``(C) September 15, and
``(D) December 15.
Such term includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
``(3) Eligible taxpayer.--The term `eligible taxpayer'
means--
``(A) a bank (within the meaning of section 581),
``(B) an insurance company to which subchapter L applies,
``(C) a corporation actively engaged in the business of
lending money, and
``(D) any other C corporation.
``(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) Local educational agency.--The term `local
educational agency' has the meaning given to such term by
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965. Such term includes the local educational agency that
serves the District of Columbia, but does not include any
other State agency.
``(2) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(3) State.--The term `State' includes the District of
Columbia and any possession of the United States.
``(4) Public school facility.--The term `public school
facility' shall not include--
``(A) any stadium or other facility primarily used for
athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which
admission is charged to the general public, or
``(B) any facility which is not owned by a State or local
government or any agency or instrumentality of a State or
local government.
``(5) Permitted purpose.--The term `permitted purpose'
means--
``(A) in the case of a bond which is a qualified zone
academy bond without regard to section 1397G, any qualified
purpose (as defined in section 1397F(a)(4)), and
``(B) in the case of a bond which is a qualified zone
academy bond solely by reason of section 1397G, the purpose
described in section 1397G(a)(2).
``(f) Special Rules.--
``(1) Only certain refinancings permitted.--A refinancing
of indebtedness (other than a qualified zone academy bond)
shall be treated as a qualified zone academy bond only if
such indebtedness was originally incurred by the issuer--
``(A) after the date of the enactment of this section,
``(B) for a term of not more than 1 year,
``(C) to finance an expenditure which is a permitted
purpose to be financed by a qualified zone academy bond, and
``(D) in anticipation of being refinanced with proceeds of
a qualified zone academy bond.
``(2) Sinking funds.--Rules similar to the rules under
section 148 on replacement proceeds shall apply for purposes
of this section. Such replacement proceeds shall be invested
in noninterest-bearing State and Local Government Series
obligations issued by the Secretary.
``(g) Special Rules Relating to Arbitrage.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, an issue shall be treated as meeting the
requirements of this subsection if the issue meets the
spending requirements of subclause (I) of section
148(f)(4)(C)(xviii).
``(2) Rules regarding compliance during 4-year period.--If
an issue fails to meet such spending requirements during the
4-year period beginning on the date of issuance, the issuer
shall pay to the United States amounts which
[[Page 24415]]
would be required to be paid to the United States under
section 148(f)(2) were such issue required to meet the
requirements of such section. Rules similar to the rules of
clause (iii) of section 148(f)(4)(C) shall apply for purposes
of the preceding sentence.
``(3) Rules regarding continuing compliance after 4-year
determination.--If at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the
issue is not expended for 1 or more permitted purposes within
the 4-year period beginning on the date of issuance, an issue
shall be treated as continuing to meet the requirements of
this subsection if the issuer uses all unspent proceeds of
the issue to redeem bonds of the issue within 90 days after
the end of such 4-year period.
``(4) Small issuer exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not
apply to an issue issued by a governmental unit with general
taxing powers if the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3)
of section 148(f) would be treated as met by reason of
subparagraph (D) of section 148(f)(4) if such issue were
treated as a tax-exempt bond and taken into account under
such subparagraph, and such issue shall be so treated for
purposes of determining whether such requirements are met
with respect to tax-exempt bonds.
``(h) Recapture of Portion of Credit Where Cessation of
Compliance.--
``(1) In general.--If any bond which when issued purported
to be a qualified zone academy bond ceases to be a qualified
zone academy bond, the issuer shall pay to the United States
(at the time required by the Secretary) an amount equal to
the sum of--
``(A) the aggregate of the credits allowable under this
section with respect to such bond (determined without regard
to subsection (c)) for taxable years ending during the
calendar year in which such cessation occurs and the 2
preceding calendar years, and
``(B) interest at the underpayment rate under section 6621
on the amount determined under subparagraph (A) for each
calendar year for the period beginning on the first day of
such calendar year.
``(2) Failure to pay.--If the issuer fails to timely pay
the amount required by paragraph (1) with respect to such
bond, the tax imposed by this chapter on each holder of any
such bond which is part of such issue shall be increased (for
the taxable year of the holder in which such cessation
occurs) by the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed
under this section to such holder for taxable years beginning
in such 3 calendar years which would have resulted solely
from denying any credit under this section with respect to
such issue for such taxable years.
``(3) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (2) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
paragraph (2) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining --
``(i) the amount of any credit allowable under this part,
or
``(ii) the amount of the tax imposed by section 55.
``(i) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income
includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer
under this section (determined without regard to subsection
(c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest
income.
``(j) Treatment for Estimated Tax Purposes.--Solely for
purposes of sections 6654 and 6655, the credit allowed by
this section to a taxpayer by reason of holding a qualified
zone academy bond on a credit allowance date shall be treated
as if it were a payment of estimated tax made by the taxpayer
on such date.
``(k) Reporting.--Issuers of qualified zone academy bonds
shall submit reports similar to the reports required under
section 149(e).
``(l) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
bond issued after December 31, 2005.
``SEC. 1397F. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.''
(b) Extension of Qualified Zone Academy Bond Provisions.--
(1) Subsections (d) and (e) of section 1397E (as in effect
on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act) are
hereby moved and inserted after the section heading for
section 1397F (as added by subsection (a)) and redesignated
as subsections (a) and (b).
(2) Subsection (b) of section 1397F (as so redesignated) is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Limitations on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) In general.--There is a national zone academy bond
limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is--
``(A) $400,000,000 for 1998,
``(B) $400,000,000 for 1999,
``(C) $400,000,000 for 2000,
``(D) $400,000,000 for 2001,
``(E) $400,000,000 for 2002,
``(F) $400,000,000 for 2003, and
``(G) except as provided in paragraph (3), zero after 2003.
``(2) Allocation of limitation.--
``(A) In general.--The national zone academy bond
limitation for a calendar year shall be allocated by the
Secretary among the States on the basis of their respective
populations of individuals below the poverty line (as defined
by the Office of Management and Budget). The limitation
amount allocated to a State under the preceding sentence
shall be allocated by the State to qualified zone academies
within such State.
``(B) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any
calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a)
with respect to any qualified zone academy shall not exceed
the limitation amount allocated to such academy under
subparagraph (A) for such calendar year.
``(3) Carryover of unused limitation.--If for any calendar
year--
``(A) the limitation amount under this subsection for any
State, exceeds
``(B) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are
designated under subsection (a) (or the corresponding
provisions of prior law) with respect to qualified zone
academies within such State,
the limitation amount under this subsection for such State
for the following calendar year shall be increased by the
amount of such excess. Any carryforward of a limitation
amount may be carried only to the first 2 years (3 years for
carryforwards from 1998 or 1999) following the unused
limitation year. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a
limitation amount shall be treated as used on a first-in
first-out basis.''
(3) Subsection (a) of section 1397F (as so redesignated) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``For purposes of this section--'' in the
material preceding paragraph (1) and inserting ``For purposes
of this part--'',
(B) by striking ``an eligible local'' in paragraphs (1)(A)
and (3)(A) (as redesignated by this paragraph) and inserting
``a local'',
(C) by striking ``the maximum term permitted under
paragraph (3)'' in paragraph (1)(D) and inserting ``15
years'', and
(D) by striking paragraphs (3) and (6) and by redesignating
paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (3) and (4),
respectively.
(4) Paragraph (3) of section 1397F(a) (as so redesignated)
is amended--
(A) by striking ``(4)'' and all that follows through ``The
term'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Qualified zone academy.--The term'',
(B) by striking subparagraph (B),
(C) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iv) as
subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively, and
(D) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) of
subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated) as clauses (i) and
(ii), respectively.
(c) Authorization of Additional Qualified Zone Academy
Bonds Without Targeting and Private Partnership
Requirements.--Part IV of subchapter U of chapter 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 1397G. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL QUALIFIED ZONE
ACADEMY BONDS WITHOUT TARGETING AND PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of this part, the term
`qualified zone academy bond' also includes any bond issued
by a State or local government as part of an issue if--
``(1) the issuer designates such bond for purpose of this
section, and
``(2) the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D)
of paragraph (1) of section 1397F(a) are met with respect to
such issue, determined--
``(A) by treating any public school facility as being a
qualified zone academy ,and
``(B) by applying paragraph (4) thereof as if the only
qualified purpose were constructing, rehabilitating, or
repairing a public school facility or acquiring the land
which is functionally related and subordinate to the public
school facility which is to be constructed with part of the
proceeds of such issue.
``(b) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any
calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a) by
any issuer shall not exceed the limitation amount allocated
under subsection (d) for such calendar year to such issuer.
``(c) National Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
There is a national additional qualified zone academy bond
limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is--
``(1) $5,000,000,000 for 2001,
``(2) $5,000,000,000 for 2002, and
``(3) $5,000,000,000 for 2003,
``(4) except as provided in subsection (e), zero after
2003.
``(d) Limitation Allocated Among States.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Allocation on the basis of population.--50 percent of
the limitation applicable under subsection (c) for any
calendar year shall be allocated before such calendar year by
the Secretary among the States on the basis of their
respective populations.
``(B) Allocation on the basis of poverty.--50 percent of
the limitation applicable under subsection (c) for any
calendar year shall be allocated before such calendar year by
the Secretary among the States on the basis of their
respective populations of individuals below the poverty line
(as defined by the Office of Management and Budget).
``(C) Minimum allocations to small states.--The Secretary
shall adjust the allocations under this subsection for any
calendar year for each State to the extent necessary to
ensure that the amount allocated to such State under this
subsection for such year is not less than $25,000,000.
``(D) Use of census data.--Determinations under this
subsection shall be made on the basis of the most recently
available census data.
``(2) Allocation within the state.--
[[Page 24416]]
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (B), the limitation allocated to any State may
be allocated among governmental units in such State having
authority to issue such bonds as provided by State law (or,
in absence of State law, by the Governor of such State).
``(B) Minimum allocations to large local educational
agencies.--In no event may the limitation for any calendar
year allocated to any large local educational agency in a
State be less than the sum of--
``(i) an amount which bears the same ratio to 50 percent of
such limitation as the population within the area under the
jurisdiction of such agency bears to the population of the
entire State, and
``(ii) an amount which bears the same ratio to 50 percent
of such limitation as the population within the area under
the jurisdiction of such agency below the poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget) bears to such
population of the entire State.
``(3) Allocations for indian schools.--In addition to the
amounts otherwise allocated under this subsection,
$200,000,000 (in the aggregate for calendar years 2001, 2002,
and 2003) shall be allocated by the Secretary (after
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior) for purposes
of the construction, rehabilitation, and repair of schools
operated by or on behalf of an Indian tribal government
(within the meaning of section 7871). In the case of amounts
allocated under the preceding sentence, Indian tribal
governments (as so defined) shall be treated as qualified
issuers for purposes of this part.
``(4) Required state allocation plans.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the limitation for any State shall be zero
unless the limitation is allocated within such State pursuant
to a qualified allocation plan.
``(B) Qualified allocation plan.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `qualified allocation plan' means
any plan which--
``(i) identifies the State's needs for public school
facilities (including descriptions of the capacity of public
schools in the State to house projected enrollments),
particular financing difficulties being encountered by local
school districts in the State, and health and safety problems
at existing facilities, and
``(ii) describes how the State will allocate to local
educational agencies, or otherwise use, its allocation under
this section to address the needs identified under clause
(i), including a description of how it will--
``(I) ensure that the needs of rural, urban, and suburban
areas will be recognized,
``(II) ensure that the needs of localities with the
greatest needs, as demonstrated by inadequate school
facilities coupled with low level of resources, will be met,
and
``(III) give priority to the role of charter schools in
achieving State educational objectives.
``(C) Application of paragraph.--This paragraph shall apply
to allocations after more than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph.
``(5) Large local educational agency.--For purposes of this
section, the term `large local educational agency' means,
with respect to a calendar year, any local educational agency
with at least 40,000 children who have attained age 5 but not
age 18 for the most recent fiscal year ending before such
calendar year.
``(e) Carryover of Unused Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--If for any calendar year--
``(A) the amount allocated under subsection (d) to any
State, exceeds
``(B) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are
designated under subsection (a) pursuant to such allocation,
the limitation amount under such subsection for such State
for the following calendar year shall be increased by the
amount of such excess.
``(2) 2-year carryforward.--Any carryforward of a
limitation amount may be carried only to the first 2 years
following the unused limitation year. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, a limitation amount shall be treated as
used on a first-in first-out basis.
``(3) Allocations for indian schools.--Rules similar to
paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply to the amounts allocated
under subsection (d)(3); except that 2003 shall be treated as
the unused limitation year.''
(d) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 (relating to
returns regarding payments of interest) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Reporting of credit on qualified zone academy
bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 1397E(i) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on
the credit allowance date (as defined in section
1397E(d)(2)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection
(b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to
subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsections (f), (g), and (h) of section 1397E (as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act) are hereby repealed.
(2) Subchapter U of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
redesignating section 1397F (as in effect on the day before
the date of the enactment of this Act) as section 1397H.
(3) The table of parts of subchapter U of chapter 1 of such
Code is amended by striking the item relating to part IV and
inserting the following item:
``Part IV. Education bond provisions.''
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to obligations issued after December 31, 2000.
(2) Modification of restriction on zone academy bond
holders.--In the case of bonds to which section 1397E of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect before the date
of the enactment of this Act) applies, the limitation of such
section to corporations actively engaged in the business of
lending money shall not apply after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
TITLE VI--COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION
Subtitle A--Tax Incentives for Renewal Communities
SEC. 601. DESIGNATION OF AND TAX INCENTIVES FOR RENEWAL
COMMUNITIES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subchapter:
``Subchapter X--Renewal Communities
``Part I. Designation.
``Part II. Renewal community capital gain; renewal community business.
``Part III. Additional incentives.
``PART I--DESIGNATION
``Sec. 1400E. Designation of renewal communities.
``SEC. 1400E. DESIGNATION OF RENEWAL COMMUNITIES.
``(a) Designation.--
``(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this title, the term
`renewal community' means any area--
``(A) which is nominated by 1 or more local governments and
the State or States in which it is located for designation as
a renewal community (hereafter in this section referred to as
a `nominated area'), and
``(B) which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
designates as a renewal community, after consultation with--
``(i) the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and
the Treasury; the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, and the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration, and
``(ii) in the case of an area on an Indian reservation, the
Secretary of the Interior.
``(2) Number of designations.--
``(A) In general.--Not more than 40 nominated areas may be
designated as renewal communities.
``(B) Minimum designation in rural areas.--Of the areas
designated under paragraph (1), at least 12 must be areas--
``(i) which are within a local government jurisdiction or
jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000,
``(ii) which are outside of a metropolitan statistical area
(within the meaning of section 143(k)(2)(B)), or
``(iii) which are determined by the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, after consultation with the Secretary
of Commerce, to be rural areas.
One of such 12 areas shall be an area within Mississippi, to
be designated by the State of Mississippi, that includes at
least 1 census tract within Madison County, Mississippi.
``(3) Areas designated based on degree of poverty, etc.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the nominated areas designated as renewal
communities under this subsection shall be those nominated
areas with the highest average ranking with respect to the
criteria described in subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of
subsection (c)(3). For purposes of the preceding sentence, an
area shall be ranked within each such criterion on the basis
of the amount by which the area exceeds such criterion, with
the area which exceeds such criterion by the greatest amount
given the highest ranking.
``(B) Exception where inadequate course of action, etc.--An
area shall not be designated under subparagraph (A) if the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development determines that
the course of action described in subsection (d)(2) with
respect to such area is inadequate.
``(C) Preference for enterprise communities and empowerment
zones.--With respect to the first 20 designations made under
this section, a preference shall be provided to those
nominated areas which are enterprise communities or
empowerment zones (and are otherwise eligible for designation
under this section).
``(4) Limitation on designations.--
``(A) Publication of regulations.--The Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development shall prescribe by regulation no later
than 4 months after the date of the enactment of this
section, after consultation with the officials described in
paragraph (1)(B)--
``(i) the procedures for nominating an area under paragraph
(1)(A),
``(ii) the parameters relating to the size and population
characteristics of a renewal community, and
``(iii) the manner in which nominated areas will be
evaluated based on the criteria specified in subsection (d).
``(B) Time limitations.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may designate nominated areas as renewal
communities only during the period beginning on the first day
of
[[Page 24417]]
the first month following the month in which the regulations
described in subparagraph (A) are prescribed and ending on
December 31, 2001.
``(C) Procedural rules.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall not make any designation of a nominated
area as a renewal community under paragraph (2) unless--
``(i) the local governments and the States in which the
nominated area is located have the authority--
``(I) to nominate such area for designation as a renewal
community,
``(II) to make the State and local commitments described in
subsection (d), and
``(III) to provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development that such commitments will
be fulfilled,
``(ii) a nomination regarding such area is submitted in
such a manner and in such form, and contains such
information, as the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall by regulation prescribe, and
``(iii) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
determines that any information furnished is reasonably
accurate.
``(5) Nomination process for indian reservations.--For
purposes of this subchapter, in the case of a nominated area
on an Indian reservation, the reservation governing body (as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior) shall be treated
as being both the State and local governments with respect to
such area.
``(b) Period for Which Designation Is in Effect.--
``(1) In general.--Any designation of an area as a renewal
community shall remain in effect during the period beginning
on January 1, 2002, and ending on the earliest of--
``(A) December 31, 2009,
``(B) the termination date designated by the State and
local governments in their nomination, or
``(C) the date the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development revokes such designation.
``(2) Revocation of designation.--The Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development may revoke the designation under this
section of an area if such Secretary determines that the
local government or the State in which the area is located--
``(A) has modified the boundaries of the area, or
``(B) is not complying substantially with, or fails to make
progress in achieving, the State or local commitments,
respectively, described in subsection (d).
``(3) Earlier termination of certain benefits if earlier
termination of designation.--If the designation of an area as
a renewal community terminates before December 31, 2009, the
day after the date of such termination shall be substituted
for `January 1, 2010' each place it appears in sections 1400F
and 1400J with respect to such area.
``(c) Area and Eligibility Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may designate a nominated area as a renewal
community under subsection (a) only if the area meets the
requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection.
``(2) Area requirements.--A nominated area meets the
requirements of this paragraph if--
``(A) the area is within the jurisdiction of one or more
local governments,
``(B) the boundary of the area is continuous, and
``(C) the area--
``(i) has a population of not more than 200,000 and at
least--
``(I) 4,000 if any portion of such area (other than a rural
area described in subsection (a)(2)(B)(i)) is located within
a metropolitan statistical area (within the meaning of
section 143(k)(2)(B)) which has a population of 50,000 or
greater, or
``(II) 1,000 in any other case, or
``(ii) is entirely within an Indian reservation (as
determined by the Secretary of the Interior).
``(3) Eligibility requirements.--A nominated area meets the
requirements of this paragraph if the State and the local
governments in which it is located certify in writing (and
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, after such
review of supporting data as he deems appropriate, accepts
such certification) that--
``(A) the area is one of pervasive poverty, unemployment,
and general distress;
``(B) the unemployment rate in the area, as determined by
the most recent available data, was at least 1\1/2\ times the
national unemployment rate for the period to which such data
relate;
``(C) the poverty rate for each population census tract
within the nominated area is at least 20 percent; and
``(D) in the case of an urban area, at least 70 percent of
the households living in the area have incomes below 80
percent of the median income of households within the
jurisdiction of the local government (determined in the same
manner as under section 119(b)(2) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974).
``(4) Consideration of other factors.--The Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, in selecting any nominated
area for designation as a renewal community under this
section--
``(A) shall take into account--
``(i) the extent to which such area has a high incidence of
crime, or
``(ii) if such area has census tracts identified in the May
12, 1998, report of the General Accounting Office regarding
the identification of economically distressed areas, and
``(B) with respect to 1 of the areas to be designated under
subsection (a)(2)(B), may, in lieu of any criteria described
in paragraph (3), take into account the existence of
outmigration from the area.
``(d) Required State and Local Commitments.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may designate any nominated area as a renewal
community under subsection (a) only if--
``(A) the local government and the State in which the area
is located agree in writing that, during any period during
which the area is a renewal community, such governments will
follow a specified course of action which meets the
requirements of paragraph (2) and is designed to reduce the
various burdens borne by employers or employees in such area,
and
``(B) the economic growth promotion requirements of
paragraph (3) are met.
``(2) Course of action.--
``(A) In general.--A course of action meets the
requirements of this paragraph if such course of action is a
written document, signed by a State (or local government) and
neighborhood organizations, which evidences a partnership
between such State or government and community-based
organizations and which commits each signatory to specific
and measurable goals, actions, and timetables. Such course of
action shall include at least 4 of the following:
``(i) A reduction of tax rates or fees applying within the
renewal community.
``(ii) An increase in the level of efficiency of local
services within the renewal community.
``(iii) Crime reduction strategies, such as crime
prevention (including the provision of crime prevention
services by nongovernmental entities).
``(iv) Actions to reduce, remove, simplify, or streamline
governmental requirements applying within the renewal
community.
``(v) Involvement in the program by private entities,
organizations, neighborhood organizations, and community
groups, particularly those in the renewal community,
including a commitment from such private entities to provide
jobs and job training for, and technical, financial, or other
assistance to, employers, employees, and residents from the
renewal community.
``(vi) The gift (or sale at below fair market value) of
surplus real property (such as land, homes, and commercial or
industrial structures) in the renewal community to
neighborhood organizations, community development
corporations, or private companies.
``(B) Recognition of past efforts.--For purposes of this
section, in evaluating the course of action agreed to by any
State or local government, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall take into account the past efforts of such
State or local government in reducing the various burdens
borne by employers and employees in the area involved.
``(3) Economic growth promotion requirements.--The economic
growth promotion requirements of this paragraph are met with
respect to a nominated area if the local government and the
State in which such area is located certify in writing that
such government and State (respectively) have repealed or
reduced, will not enforce, or will reduce within the
nominated area at least 4 of the following:
``(A) Licensing requirements for occupations that do not
ordinarily require a professional degree.
``(B) Zoning restrictions on home-based businesses which do
not create a public nuisance.
``(C) Permit requirements for street vendors who do not
create a public nuisance.
``(D) Zoning or other restrictions that impede the
formation of schools or child care centers.
``(E) Franchises or other restrictions on competition for
businesses providing public services, including taxicabs,
jitneys, cable television, or trash hauling.
This paragraph shall not apply to the extent that such
regulation of businesses and occupations is necessary for and
well-tailored to the protection of health and safety.
``(e) Coordination With Treatment of Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities.--For purposes of this title, the
designation under section 1391 of any area as an empowerment
zone or enterprise community shall cease to be in effect as
of the date that the designation of any portion of such area
as a renewal community takes effect.
``(f ) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
subchapter--
``(1) Governments.--If more than one government seeks to
nominate an area as a renewal community, any reference to, or
requirement of, this section shall apply to all such
governments.
``(2) Local government.--The term `local government'
means--
``(A) any county, city, town, township, parish, village, or
other general purpose political subdivision of a State, and
``(B) any combination of political subdivisions described
in subparagraph (A) recognized by the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development.
``(3) Application of rules relating to census tracts.--The
rules of section 1392(b)(4) shall apply.
``(4) Census data.--Population and poverty rate shall be
determined by using 1990 census data.
``(g) Priority for District of Columbia Nominated Area.--
For purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) In general.--One nominated area within the District
of Columbia shall be treated for purposes of subsection
(a)(3) as having the highest average with respect to the
criteria described in subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of
subsection (c)(3).
``(2) Date of designation.--Notwithstanding subsection
(b)(1), the designation of a nominated area within the
District of Columbia as a
[[Page 24418]]
renewal community shall take effect on January 1, 2003.
``(3) Nomination.--The District of Columbia shall be
treated as being both a State and local government with
respect to such area.
``PART II--RENEWAL COMMUNITY CAPITAL GAIN; RENEWAL COMMUNITY BUSINESS
``Sec. 1400F. Renewal community capital gain.
``Sec. 1400G. Renewal community business defined.
``SEC. 1400F. RENEWAL COMMUNITY CAPITAL GAIN.
``(a) General Rule.--Gross income does not include any
qualified capital gain from the sale or exchange of a
qualified community asset held for more than 5 years.
``(b) Qualified Community Asset.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified community asset'
means--
``(A) any qualified community stock,
``(B) any qualified community partnership interest, and
``(C) any qualified community business property.
``(2) Qualified community stock.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `qualified community stock' means any stock in a
domestic corporation if--
``(i) such stock is acquired by the taxpayer after December
31, 2001, and before January 1, 2010, at its original issue
(directly or through an underwriter) from the corporation
solely in exchange for cash,
``(ii) as of the time such stock was issued, such
corporation was a renewal community business (or, in the case
of a new corporation, such corporation was being organized
for purposes of being a renewal community business), and
``(iii) during substantially all of the taxpayer's holding
period for such stock, such corporation qualified as a
renewal community business.
``(B) Redemptions.--A rule similar to the rule of section
1202(c)(3) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
``(3) Qualified community partnership interest.--The term
`qualified community partnership interest' means any capital
or profits interest in a domestic partnership if--
``(A) such interest is acquired by the taxpayer after
December 31, 2001, and before January 1, 2010, from the
partnership solely in exchange for cash,
``(B) as of the time such interest was acquired, such
partnership was a renewal community business (or, in the case
of a new partnership, such partnership was being organized
for purposes of being a renewal community business), and
``(C) during substantially all of the taxpayer's holding
period for such interest, such partnership qualified as a
renewal community business.
A rule similar to the rule of paragraph (2)(B) shall apply
for purposes of this paragraph.
``(4) Qualified community business property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified community business
property' means tangible property if--
``(i) such property was acquired by the taxpayer by
purchase (as defined in section 179(d)(2)) after December 31,
2001, and before January 1, 2010,
``(ii) the original use of such property in the renewal
community commences with the taxpayer, and
``(iii) during substantially all of the taxpayer's holding
period for such property, substantially all of the use of
such property was in a renewal community business of the
taxpayer.
``(B) Special rule for substantial improvements.--The
requirements of clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A)
shall be treated as satisfied with respect to--
``(i) property which is substantially improved by the
taxpayer before January 1, 2010, and
``(ii) any land on which such property is located.
The determination of whether a property is substantially
improved shall be made under clause (ii) of section
1400B(b)(4)(B), except that `December 31, 2001' shall be
substituted for `December 31, 1997' in such clause.
``(c) Qualified Capital Gain.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the term `qualified capital gain` means any gain
recognized on the sale or exchange of--
``(A) a capital asset, or
``(B) property used in the trade or business (as defined in
section 1231(b)).
``(2) Gain before 2002 or after 2014 not qualified.--The
term `qualified capital gain' shall not include any gain
attributable to periods before January 1, 2002, or after
December 31, 2014.
``(3) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of section 1400B(e) shall
apply for purposes of this subsection.
``(d) Certain Rules To Apply.--For purposes of this
section, rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (5), (6),
and (7) of subsection (b), and subsections (f ) and (g), of
section 1400B shall apply; except that for such purposes
section 1400B(g)(2) shall be applied by substituting `January
1, 2002' for `January 1, 1998' and `December 31, 2014' for
`December 31, 2007'.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes
of this section, including regulations to prevent the
avoidance of the purposes of this section.
``SEC. 1400G. RENEWAL COMMUNITY BUSINESS DEFINED.
``For purposes of this subchapter, the term `renewal
community business' means any entity or proprietorship which
would be a qualified business entity or qualified
proprietorship under section 1397C if references to renewal
communities were substituted for references to empowerment
zones in such section.
``PART III--ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES
``Sec. 1400H. Renewal community employment credit.
``Sec. 1400I. Commercial revitalization deduction.
``Sec. 1400J. Increase in expensing under section 179.
``SEC. 1400H. RENEWAL COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.
``(a) In General.--Subject to the modification in
subsection (b), a renewal community shall be treated as an
empowerment zone for purposes of section 1396 with respect to
wages paid or incurred after December 31, 2001.
``(b) Modification.--In applying section 1396 with respect
to renewal communities--
``(1) the applicable percentage shall be 15 percent, and
``(2) subsection (c) thereof shall be applied by
substituting `$10,000' for `$15,000' each place it appears.
``SEC. 1400I. COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION DEDUCTION.
``(a) General Rule.--At the election of the taxpayer,
either--
``(1) one-half of any qualified revitalization expenditures
chargeable to capital account with respect to any qualified
revitalization building shall be allowable as a deduction for
the taxable year in which the building is placed in service,
or
``(2) a deduction for all such expenditures shall be
allowable ratably over the 120-month period beginning with
the month in which the building is placed in service.
``(b) Qualified Revitalization Buildings and
Expenditures.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified revitalization building.--The term
`qualified revitalization building' means any building (and
its structural components) if--
``(A) the building is placed in service by the taxpayer in
a renewal community and the original use of the building
begins with the taxpayer, or
``(B) in the case of such building not described in
subparagraph (A), such building--
``(i) is substantially rehabilitated (within the meaning of
section 47(c)(1)(C)) by the taxpayer, and
``(ii) is placed in service by the taxpayer after the
rehabilitation in a renewal community.
``(2) Qualified revitalization expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified revitalization
expenditure' means any amount properly chargeable to capital
account for property for which depreciation is allowable
under section 168 (without regard to this section) and which
is--
``(i) nonresidential real property (as defined in section
168(e)), or
``(ii) section 1250 property (as defined in section
1250(c)) which is functionally related and subordinate to
property described in clause (i).
``(B) Certain expenditures not included.--
``(i) Acquisition cost.--In the case of a building
described in paragraph (1)(B), the cost of acquiring the
building or interest therein shall be treated as a qualified
revitalization expenditure only to the extent that such cost
does not exceed 30 percent of the aggregate qualified
revitalization expenditures (determined without regard to
such cost) with respect to such building.
``(ii) Credits.--The term `qualified revitalization
expenditure' does not include any expenditure which the
taxpayer may take into account in computing any credit
allowable under this title unless the taxpayer elects to take
the expenditure into account only for purposes of this
section.
``(c) Dollar limitation.--The aggregate amount which may be
treated as qualified revitalization expenditures with respect
to any qualified revitalization building shall not exceed the
lesser of--
``(1) $10,000,000, or
``(2) the commercial revitalization expenditure amount
allocated to such building under this section by the
commercial revitalization agency for the State in which the
building is located.
``(d) Commercial Revitalization Expenditure Amount.--
``(1) In general.--The aggregate commercial revitalization
expenditure amount which a commercial revitalization agency
may allocate for any calendar year is the amount of the State
commercial revitalization expenditure ceiling determined
under this paragraph for such calendar year for such agency.
``(2) State commercial revitalization expenditure
ceiling.--The State commercial revitalization expenditure
ceiling applicable to any State--
``(A) for each calendar year after 2001 and before 2010 is
$12,000,000 for each renewal community in the State, and
``(B) for each calendar year thereafter is zero.
``(3) Commercial revitalization agency.--For purposes of
this section, the term `commercial revitalization agency'
means any agency authorized by a State to carry out this
section.
``(4) Time and manner of allocations.--Allocations under
this section shall be made at the same time and in the same
manner as under paragraphs (1) and (7) of section 42(h).
[[Page 24419]]
``(e) Responsibilities of Commercial Revitalization
Agencies.--
``(1) Plans for allocation.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the commercial revitalization
expenditure amount with respect to any building shall be zero
unless--
``(A) such amount was allocated pursuant to a qualified
allocation plan of the commercial revitalization agency which
is approved (in accordance with rules similar to the rules of
section 147(f )(2) (other than subparagraph (B)(ii) thereof))
by the governmental unit of which such agency is a part; and
``(B) such agency notifies the chief executive officer (or
its equivalent) of the local jurisdiction within which the
building is located of such allocation and provides such
individual a reasonable opportunity to comment on the
allocation.
``(2) Qualified allocation plan.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `qualified allocation plan' means any
plan--
``(A) which sets forth selection criteria to be used to
determine priorities of the commercial revitalization agency
which are appropriate to local conditions,
``(B) which considers--
``(i) the degree to which a project contributes to the
implementation of a strategic plan that is devised for a
renewal community through a citizen participation process,
``(ii) the amount of any increase in permanent, full-time
employment by reason of any project, and
``(iii) the active involvement of residents and nonprofit
groups within the renewal community, and
``(C) which provides a procedure that the agency (or its
agent) will follow in monitoring compliance with this
section.
``(f) Special Rules.--
``(1) Deduction in lieu of depreciation.--The deduction
provided by this section for qualified revitalization
expenditures shall--
``(A) with respect to the deduction determined under
subsection (a)(1), be in lieu of any depreciation deduction
otherwise allowable on account of one-half of such
expenditures, and
``(B) with respect to the deduction determined under
subsection (a)(2), be in lieu of any depreciation deduction
otherwise allowable on account of all of such expenditures.
``(2) Basis adjustment, etc.--For purposes of sections 1016
and 1250, the deduction under this section shall be treated
in the same manner as a depreciation deduction. For purposes
of section 1250(b)(5), the straight line method of adjustment
shall be determined without regard to this section.
``(3) Substantial rehabilitations treated as separate
buildings.--A substantial rehabilitation (within the meaning
of section 47(c)(1)(C)) of a building shall be treated as a
separate building for purposes of subsection (a).
``(4) Clarification of allowance of deduction under minimum
tax.--Notwithstanding section 56(a)(1), the deduction under
this section shall be allowed in determining alternative
minimum taxable income under section 55.
``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
building placed in service after December 31, 2009.
``SEC. 1400J. INCREASE IN EXPENSING UNDER SECTION 179.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 1397A--
``(1) a renewal community shall be treated as an
empowerment zone,
``(2) a renewal community business shall be treated as an
enterprise zone business, and
``(3) qualified renewal property shall be treated as
qualified zone property.
``(b) Qualified Renewal Property.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified renewal property'
means any property to which section 168 applies (or would
apply but for section 179) if--
``(A) such property was acquired by the taxpayer by
purchase (as defined in section 179(d)(2)) after December 31,
2001, and before January 1, 2010, and
``(B) such property would be qualified zone property (as
defined in section 1397D) if references to renewal
communities were substituted for references to empowerment
zones in section 1397D.
``(2) Certain rules to apply.--The rules of subsections
(a)(2) and (b) of section 1397D shall apply for purposes of
this section.''.
(b) Exception for Commercial Revitalization Deduction From
Passive Loss Rules.--
(1) Paragraph (3) of section 469(i) is amended by
redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively, and by
inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Exception for commercial revitalization deduction.--
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any portion of the
passive activity loss for any taxable year which is
attributable to the commercial revitalization deduction under
section 1400I.''.
(2) Subparagraph (E) of section 469(i)(3), as redesignated
by subparagraph (A), is amended to read as follows:
``(E) Ordering rules to reflect exceptions and separate
phase-outs.--If subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) applies for a
taxable year, paragraph (1) shall be applied--
``(i) first to the portion of the passive activity loss to
which subparagraph (C) does not apply,
``(ii) second to the portion of the passive activity credit
to which subparagraph (B) or (D) does not apply,
``(iii) third to the portion of such credit to which
subparagraph (B) applies,
``(iv) fourth to the portion of such loss to which
subparagraph (C) applies, and
``(v) then to the portion of such credit to which
subparagraph (D) applies.''.
(3)(A) Subparagraph (B) of section 469(i)(6) is amended by
striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i), by striking the
period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, or'', and
by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) any deduction under section 1400I (relating to
commercial revitalization deduction).''.
(B) The heading for such subparagraph (B) is amended by
striking ``or rehabilitation credit'' and inserting ``,
rehabilitation credit, or commercial revitalization
deduction''.
(c) Audit and Report.--Not later than January 31 of 2004,
2007, and 2010, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall, pursuant to an audit of the renewal community program
established under section 1400E of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (as added by subsection (a)) and the empowerment zone
and enterprise community program under subchapter U of
chapter 1 of such Code, report to Congress on such program
and its effect on poverty, unemployment, and economic growth
within the designated renewal communities, empowerment zones,
and enterprise communities.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of subchapters for
chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Subchapter X. Renewal Communities.''.
SEC. 602. WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT FOR HIRING YOUTH RESIDING
IN RENEWAL COMMUNITIES.
(a) High-Risk Youth.--Subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B) of
section 51(d)(5) are each amended by striking ``empowerment
zone or enterprise community'' and inserting ``empowerment
zone, enterprise community, or renewal community''.
(b) Qualified Summer Youth Employee.--Clause (iv) of
section 51(d)(7)(A) is amended by striking ``empowerment zone
or enterprise community'' and inserting ``empowerment zone,
enterprise community, or renewal community''.
(c) Headings.--Paragraphs (5)(B) and (7)(C) of section
51(d) are each amended by inserting ``or community'' in the
heading after ``zone''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after December 31, 2001.
Subtitle B--Extension and Expansion of Empowerment Zone Incentives
SEC. 611. AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE 9 ADDITIONAL EMPOWERMENT
ZONES.
Section 1391 is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(h) Additional Designations Permitted.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to the areas designated
under subsections (a) and (g), the appropriate Secretaries
may designate in the aggregate an additional 9 nominated
areas as empowerment zones under this section, subject to the
availability of eligible nominated areas. Of that number, not
more than seven may be designated in urban areas and not more
than 2 may be designated in rural areas.
``(2) Period designations may be made and take effect.--A
designation may be made under this subsection after the date
of the enactment of this subsection and before January 1,
2002. Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection
(d)(1), such designations shall remain in effect during the
period beginning on January 1, 2002, and ending on December
31, 2009.
``(3) Modifications to eligibility criteria, etc.--The
rules of subsection (g)(3) shall apply to designations under
this subsection.''.
SEC. 612. EXTENSION OF EMPOWERMENT ZONE TREATMENT THROUGH
2009.
Subparagraph (A) of section 1391(d)(1) (relating to period
for which designation is in effect) is amended to read as
follows:
``(A)(i) in the case of an empowerment zone, December 31,
2009, or
``(ii) in the case of an enterprise community, the close of
the 10th calendar year beginning on or after such date of
designation,''.
SEC. 613. 20 PERCENT EMPLOYMENT CREDIT FOR ALL EMPOWERMENT
ZONES
(a) 20 Percent Credit.--Subsection (b) of section 1396
(relating to empowerment zone employment credit) is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of this section,
the applicable percentage is 20 percent.''.
(b) All Empowerment Zones Eligible for Credit.--Section
1396 is amended by striking subsection (e).
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (d) of section 1400
is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Special Rule for Application of Employment Credit.--
With respect to the DC Zone, section 1396(d)(1)(B) (relating
to empowerment zone employment credit) shall be applied by
substituting `the District of Columbia' for `such empowerment
zone'.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to wages paid or incurred after December 31,
2001.
SEC. 614. INCREASED EXPENSING UNDER SECTION 179.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1397A(a)(1) is
amended by striking ``$20,000'' and inserting ``$35,000''.
(b) Expensing for Property Used in Developable Sites.--
Section 1397A is amended by striking subsection (c).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
SEC. 615. HIGHER LIMITS ON TAX-EXEMPT EMPOWERMENT ZONE
FACILITY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 1394(f) (relating
to bonds for empowerment zones
[[Page 24420]]
designated under section 1391(g)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Empowerment zone facility bond.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `empowerment zone facility bond' means
any bond which would be described in subsection (a) if--
``(A) in the case of obligations issued before January 1,
2002, only empowerment zones designated under section 1391(g)
were taken into account under sections 1397C and 1397D, and
``(B) in the case of obligations issued after December 31,
2001, all empowerment zones (other than the District of
Columbia) were taken into account under sections 1397C and
1397D.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 2001.
SEC. 616. NONRECOGNITION OF GAIN ON ROLLOVER OF EMPOWERMENT
ZONE INVESTMENTS.
(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter U of chapter 1 is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subpart C as subpart D;
(2) by redesignating sections 1397B and 1397C as sections
1397C and 1397D, respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subpart B the following new subpart:
``Subpart C--Nonrecognition of Gain on Rollover of Empowerment Zone
Investments
``Sec. 1397B. Nonrecognition of Gain on Rollover of Empowerment Zone
Investments.
``SEC. 1397B. NONRECOGNITION OF GAIN ON ROLLOVER OF
EMPOWERMENT ZONE INVESTMENTS.
``(a) Nonrecognition of Gain.--In the case of any sale of a
qualified empowerment zone asset held by the taxpayer for
more than 1 year and with respect to which such taxpayer
elects the application of this section, gain from such sale
shall be recognized only to the extent that the amount
realized on such sale exceeds--
``(1) the cost of any qualified empowerment zone asset
(with respect to the same zone as the asset sold) purchased
by the taxpayer during the 60-day period beginning on the
date of such sale, reduced by
``(2) any portion of such cost previously taken into
account under this section.
``(b) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Qualified empowerment zone asset.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified empowerment zone
asset' means any property which would be a qualified
community asset (as defined in section 1400F) if in section
1400F--
``(i) references to empowerment zones were substituted for
references to renewal communities,
``(ii) references to enterprise zone businesses (as defined
in section 1397C) were substituted for references to renewal
community businesses, and
``(iii) the date of the enactment of this paragraph were
substituted for `December 31, 2001' each place it appears.
``(B) Treatment of dc zone.--The District of Columbia
Enterprise Zone shall not be treated as an empowerment zone
for purposes of this section.
``(2) Certain gain not eligible for rollover.--This section
shall not apply to--
``(A) any gain which is treated as ordinary income for
purposes of this subtitle, and
``(B) any gain which is attributable to real property, or
an intangible asset, which is not an integral part of an
enterprise zone business.
``(3) Purchase.--A taxpayer shall be treated as having
purchased any property if, but for paragraph (4), the
unadjusted basis of such property in the hands of the
taxpayer would be its cost (within the meaning of section
1012).
``(4) Basis adjustments.--If gain from any sale is not
recognized by reason of subsection (a), such gain shall be
applied to reduce (in the order acquired) the basis for
determining gain or loss of any qualified empowerment zone
asset which is purchased by the taxpayer during the 60-day
period described in subsection (a). This paragraph shall not
apply for purposes of section 1202.
``(5) Holding period.--For purposes of determining whether
the nonrecognition of gain under subsection (a) applies to
any qualified empowerment zone asset which is sold--
``(A) the taxpayer's holding period for such asset and the
asset referred to in subsection (a)(1) shall be determined
without regard to section 1223, and
``(B) only the first year of the taxpayer's holding period
for the asset referred to in subsection (a)(1) shall be taken
into account for purposes of paragraphs (2)(A)(iii), (3)(C),
and (4)(A)(iii) of section 1400F(b).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (23) of section 1016(a) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or 1045'' and inserting ``1045, or
1397B'', and
(B) by striking ``or 1045(b)(4)'' and inserting
``1045(b)(4), or 1397B(b)(4)''.
(2) Paragraph (15) of section 1223 is amended to read as
follows:
``(15) Except for purposes of sections 1202(a)(2),
1202(c)(2)(A), 1400B(b), and 1400F(b), in determining the
period for which the taxpayer has held property the
acquisition of which resulted under section 1045 or 1397B in
the nonrecognition of any part of the gain realized on the
sale of other property, there shall be included the period
for which such other property has been held as of the date of
such sale.''.
(3) Paragraph (2) of section 1394(b) is amended--
(A) by striking ``section 1397C'' and inserting ``section
1397D'', and
(B) by striking ``section 1397C(a)(2)'' and inserting
``section 1397D(a)(2)''.
(4) Paragraph (3) of section 1394(b) is amended--
(A) by striking ``section 1397B'' each place it appears and
inserting ``section 1397C'', and
(B) by striking ``section 1397B(d)'' and inserting
``section 1397C(d)''.
(5) Sections 1400(e) and 1400B(c) are each amended by
striking ``section 1397B'' each place it appears and
inserting ``section 1397C''.
(6) The table of subparts for part III of subchapter U of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the last item and inserting
the following new items:
``Subpart C. Nonrecognition of gain on rollover of empowerment zone
investments.
``Subpart D. General provisions.''.
(7) The table of sections for subpart D of such part III is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 1397C. Enterprise zone business defined.
``Sec. 1397D. Qualified zone property defined.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to qualified empowerment zone assets acquired
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 617. INCREASED EXCLUSION OF GAIN ON SALE OF EMPOWERMENT
ZONE STOCK.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) Exclusion.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, gross income shall not include 50 percent of any
gain from the sale or exchange of qualified small business
stock held for more than 5 years.
``(2) Empowerment zone businesses.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of qualified small business
stock acquired after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph in a corporation which is a qualified business
entity (as defined in section 1397C(b)) during substantially
all of the taxpayer's holding period for such stock,
paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `60 percent'
for `50 percent'.
``(B) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of paragraphs (5) and (7) of section 1400B(b) shall apply for
purposes of this paragraph.
``(C) Gain after 2014 not qualified.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to gain attributable to periods after
December 31, 2014.
``(D) Treatment of dc zone.--The District of Columbia
Enterprise Zone shall not be treated as an empowerment zone
for purposes of this paragraph.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (8) of section 1(h) is
amended by striking ``means'' and all that follows and
inserting ``means the excess of--
``(A) the gain which would be excluded from gross income
under section 1202 but for the percentage limitation in
section 1202(a), over
``(B) the gain excluded from gross income under section
1202.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to stock acquired after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
Subtitle C--New Markets Tax Credit
SEC. 621. NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business-related credits) is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 45D. NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, in the case
of a taxpayer who holds a qualified equity investment on a
credit allowance date of such investment which occurs during
the taxable year, the new markets tax credit determined under
this section for such taxable year is an amount equal to the
applicable percentage of the amount paid to the qualified
community development entity for such investment at its
original issue.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable percentage is--
``(A) 5 percent with respect to the first 3 credit
allowance dates, and
``(B) 6 percent with respect to the remainder of the credit
allowance dates.
``(3) Credit allowance date.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the term `credit allowance date' means, with respect to
any qualified equity investment--
``(A) the date on which such investment is initially made,
and
``(B) each of the 6 anniversary dates of such date
thereafter.
``(b) Qualified Equity Investment.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified equity investment'
means any equity investment in a qualified community
development entity if--
``(A) such investment is acquired by the taxpayer at its
original issue (directly or through an underwriter) solely in
exchange for cash,
``(B) substantially all of such cash is used by the
qualified community development entity to make qualified low-
income community investments, and
``(C) such investment is designated for purposes of this
section by the qualified community development entity.
Such term shall not include any equity investment issued by a
qualified community development entity more than 5 years
after the date that such entity receives an allocation under
subsection (f). Any allocation not used within such 5-year
period may be reallocated by the Secretary under subsection
(f).
``(2) Limitation.--The maximum amount of equity investments
issued by a qualified community development entity which may
be designated under paragraph (1)(C) by such entity
[[Page 24421]]
shall not exceed the portion of the limitation amount
allocated under subsection (f) to such entity.
``(3) Safe harbor for determining use of cash.--The
requirement of paragraph (1)(B) shall be treated as met if at
least 85 percent of the aggregate gross assets of the
qualified community development entity are invested in
qualified low-income community investments.
``(4) Treatment of subsequent purchasers.--The term
`qualified equity investment' includes any equity investment
which would (but for paragraph (1)(A)) be a qualified equity
investment in the hands of the taxpayer if such investment
was a qualified equity investment in the hands of a prior
holder.
``(5) Redemptions.--A rule similar to the rule of section
1202(c)(3) shall apply for purposes of this subsection.
``(6) Equity investment.--The term `equity investment'
means--
``(A) any stock (other than nonqualified preferred stock as
defined in section 351(g)(2)) in an entity which is a
corporation, and
``(B) any capital interest in an entity which is a
partnership.
``(c) Qualified Community Development Entity.--For purposes
of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified community
development entity' means any domestic corporation or
partnership if--
``(A) the primary mission of the entity is serving, or
providing investment capital for, low-income communities or
low-income persons,
``(B) the entity maintains accountability to residents of
low-income communities through their representation on any
governing board of the entity or on any advisory board to the
entity, and
``(C) the entity is certified by the Secretary for purposes
of this section as being a qualified community development
entity.
``(2) Special rules for certain organizations.--The
requirements of paragraph (1) shall be treated as met by--
``(A) any specialized small business investment company (as
defined in section 1044(c)(3)), and
``(B) any community development financial institution (as
defined in section 103 of the Community Development Banking
and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4702)).
``(d) Qualified Low-Income Community Investments.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified low-income community
investment' means--
``(A) any equity investment in, or loan to, any qualified
active low-income community business,
``(B) the purchase from another community development
entity of any loan made by such entity which is a qualified
low-income community investment,
``(C) financial counseling and other services specified in
regulations prescribed by the Secretary to businesses located
in, and residents of, low-income communities, and
``(D) any equity investment in, or loan to, any qualified
community development entity.
``(2) Qualified active low-income community business.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term
`qualified active low-income community business' means, with
respect to any taxable year, any corporation (including a
nonprofit corporation) or partnership if for such year--
``(i) at least 50 percent of the total gross income of such
entity is derived from the active conduct of a qualified
business within any low-income community,
``(ii) a substantial portion of the use of the tangible
property of such entity (whether owned or leased) is within
any low-income community,
``(iii) a substantial portion of the services performed for
such entity by its employees are performed in any low-income
community,
``(iv) less than 5 percent of the average of the aggregate
unadjusted bases of the property of such entity is
attributable to collectibles (as defined in section
408(m)(2)) other than collectibles that are held primarily
for sale to customers in the ordinary course of such
business, and
``(v) less than 5 percent of the average of the aggregate
unadjusted bases of the property of such entity is
attributable to nonqualified financial property (as defined
in section 1397C(e)).
``(B) Proprietorship.--Such term shall include any business
carried on by an individual as a proprietor if such business
would meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) were it
incorporated.
``(C) Portions of business may be qualified active low-
income community business.--The term `qualified active low-
income community business' includes any trades or businesses
which would qualify as a qualified active low-income
community business if such trades or businesses were
separately incorporated.
``(3) Qualified business.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `qualified business' has the meaning given to such
term by section 1397C(d); except that--
``(A) in lieu of applying paragraph (2)(B) thereof, the
rental to others of real property located in any low-income
community shall be treated as a qualified business if there
are substantial improvements located on such property, and
``(B) paragraph (3) thereof shall not apply.
``(e) Low-Income Community.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `low-income community' means
any population census tract if--
``(A) the poverty rate for such tract is at least 20
percent, or
``(B)(i) in the case of a tract not located within a
metropolitan area, the median family income for such tract
does not exceed 80 percent of statewide median family income,
or
``(ii) in the case of a tract located within a metropolitan
area, the median family income for such tract does not exceed
80 percent of the greater of statewide median family income
or the metropolitan area median family income.
``(2) Targeted areas.--The Secretary may designate any area
within any census tract as a low-income community if--
``(A) the boundary of such area is continuous,
``(B) the area would satisfy the requirements of paragraph
(1) if it were a census tract, and
``(C) an inadequate access to investment capital exists in
such area.
``(3) Areas not within census tracts.--In the case of an
area which is not tracted for population census tracts, the
equivalent county divisions (as defined by the Bureau of the
Census for purposes of defining poverty areas) shall be used
for purposes of determining poverty rates and median family
income.
``(f) National Limitation on Amount of Investments
Designated.--
``(1) In general.--There is a new markets tax credit
limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is--
``(A) $1,000,000,000 for 2001,
``(B) $1,500,000,000 for 2002 and 2003,
``(C) $2,000,000,000 for 2004 and 2005, and
``(D) $3,500,000,000 for 2006 and 2007.
``(2) Allocation of limitation.--The limitation under
paragraph (1) shall be allocated by the Secretary among
qualified community development entities selected by the
Secretary. In making allocations under the preceding
sentence, the Secretary shall give priority to any entity--
``(A) with a record of having successfully provided capital
or technical assistance to disadvantaged businesses or
communities, or
``(B) which intends to satisfy the requirement under
subsection (b)(1)(B) by making qualified low-income community
investments in 1 or more businesses in which persons
unrelated to such entity (within the meaning of section
267(b) or 707(b)(1)) hold the majority equity interest.
``(3) Carryover of unused limitation.--If the new markets
tax credit limitation for any calendar year exceeds the
aggregate amount allocated under paragraph (2) for such year,
such limitation for the succeeding calendar year shall be
increased by the amount of such excess. No amount may be
carried under the preceding sentence to any calendar year
after 2014.
``(g) Recapture of Credit In Certain Cases.--
``(1) In general.--If, at any time during the 7-year period
beginning on the date of the original issue of a qualified
equity investment in a qualified community development
entity, there is a recapture event with respect to such
investment, then the tax imposed by this chapter for the
taxable year in which such event occurs shall be increased by
the credit recapture amount.
``(2) Credit recapture amount.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the credit recapture amount is an amount equal to the
sum of--
``(A) the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed to the
taxpayer under section 38 for all prior taxable years which
would have resulted if no credit had been determined under
this section with respect to such investment, plus
``(B) interest at the underpayment rate established under
section 6621 on the amount determined under subparagraph (A)
for each prior taxable year for the period beginning on the
due date for filing the return for the prior taxable year
involved.
No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for interest
described in subparagraph (B).
``(3) Recapture event.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
there is a recapture event with respect to an equity
investment in a qualified community development entity if--
``(A) such entity ceases to be a qualified community
development entity,
``(B) the proceeds of the investment cease to be used as
required of subsection (b)(1)(B), or
``(C) such investment is redeemed by such entity.
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (1) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
this subsection shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit
under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.
``(h) Basis Reduction.--The basis of any qualified equity
investment shall be reduced by the amount of any credit
determined under this section with respect to such
investment. This subsection shall not apply for purposes of
sections 1202, 1400B, and 1400F.
``(i) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this section,
including regulations--
``(1) which limit the credit for investments which are
directly or indirectly subsidized by other Federal tax
benefits (including the credit under section 42 and the
exclusion from gross income under section 103),
``(2) which prevent the abuse of the purposes of this
section,
``(3) which provide rules for determining whether the
requirement of subsection (b)(1)(B) is treated as met,
``(4) which impose appropriate reporting requirements, and
[[Page 24422]]
``(5) which apply the provisions of this section to newly
formed entities.''.
(b) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 38 is amended by
striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``,
plus'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) the new markets tax credit determined under section
45D(a).''.
(2) Limitation on carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) No carryback of new markets tax credit before january
1, 2001.--No portion of the unused business credit for any
taxable year which is attributable to the credit under
section 45D may be carried back to a taxable year ending
before January 1, 2001.''.
(c) Deduction for Unused Credit.--Subsection (c) of section
196 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(7), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(9) the new markets tax credit determined under section
45D(a).''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 45D. New markets tax credit.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to investments made after December 31, 2000.
(f) Guidance on Allocation of National Limitation.--Not
later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's
delegate shall issue guidance which specifies--
(1) how entities shall apply for an allocation under
section 45D(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
added by this section;
(2) the competitive procedure through which such
allocations are made; and
(3) the actions that such Secretary or delegate shall take
to ensure that such allocations are properly made to
appropriate entities.
(g) Audit and Report.--Not later than January 31 of 2004,
2007, and 2010, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall, pursuant to an audit of the new markets tax credit
program established under section 45D of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (as added by subsection (a)), report to Congress
on such program, including all qualified community
development entities that receive an allocation under the new
markets credit under such section.
Subtitle D--Improvements in Low-Income Housing Credit
SEC. 631. MODIFICATION OF STATE CEILING ON LOW-INCOME HOUSING
CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of section
42(h)(3)(C) (relating to State housing credit ceiling) are
amended to read as follows:
``(i) the unused State housing credit ceiling (if any) of
such State for the preceding calendar year,
``(ii) the greater of--
``(I) $1.75 ($1.50 for 2001) multiplied by the State
population, or
``(II) $2,000,000,''.
(b) Adjustment of State Ceiling for Increases in Cost-of-
Living.--Paragraph (3) of section 42(h) (relating to housing
credit dollar amount for agencies) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) Cost-of-living adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a calendar year after
2002, the $2,000,000 and $1.75 amounts in subparagraph (C)
shall each be increased by an amount equal to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2001' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.
``(ii) Rounding.--
``(I) In the case of the $2,000,000 amount, any increase
under clause (i) which is not a multiple of $5,000 shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000.
``(II) In the case of the $1.75 amount, any increase under
clause (i) which is not a multiple of 5 cents shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of 5 cents.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 42(h)(3)(C), as amended by subsection (a), is
amended--
(A) by striking ``clause (ii)'' in the matter following
clause (iv) and inserting ``clause (i)''; and
(B) by striking ``clauses (i)'' in the matter following
clause (iv) and inserting ``clauses (ii)''.
(2) Section 42(h)(3)(D)(ii) is amended--
(A) by striking ``subparagraph (C)(ii)'' and inserting
``subparagraph (C)(i)''; and
(B) by striking ``clauses (i)'' in subclause (II) and
inserting ``clauses (ii)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar years after 2000.
SEC. 632. MODIFICATION OF CRITERIA FOR ALLOCATING HOUSING
CREDITS AMONG PROJECTS.
(a) Selection Criteria.--Subparagraph (C) of section
42(m)(1) (relating to certain selection criteria must be
used) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, including whether the project includes
the use of existing housing as part of a community
revitalization plan'' before the comma at the end of clause
(iii); and
(2) by striking clauses (v), (vi), and (vii) and inserting
the following new clauses:
``(v) tenant populations with special housing needs,
``(vi) public housing waiting lists,
``(vii) tenant populations of individuals with children,
and
``(viii) projects intended for eventual tenant
ownership.''.
(b) Preference for Community Revitalization Projects
Located in Qualified Census Tracts.--Clause (ii) of section
42(m)(1)(B) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
subclause (I), by adding ``and'' at the end of subclause
(II), and by inserting after subclause (II) the following new
subclause:
``(III) projects which are located in qualified census
tracts (as defined in subsection (d)(5)(C)) and the
development of which contributes to a concerted community
revitalization plan,''.
SEC. 633. ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF HOUSING CREDIT
AGENCIES.
(a) Market Study; Public Disclosure of Rationale for Not
Following Credit Allocation Priorities.--Subparagraph (A) of
section 42(m)(1) (relating to responsibilities of housing
credit agencies) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
clause (i), by striking the period at the end of clause (ii)
and inserting a comma, and by adding at the end the following
new clauses:
``(iii) a comprehensive market study of the housing needs
of low-income individuals in the area to be served by the
project is conducted before the credit allocation is made and
at the developer's expense by a disinterested party who is
approved by such agency, and
``(iv) a written explanation is available to the general
public for any allocation of a housing credit dollar amount
which is not made in accordance with established priorities
and selection criteria of the housing credit agency.''.
(b) Site Visits.--Clause (iii) of section 42(m)(1)(B)
(relating to qualified allocation plan) is amended by
inserting before the period ``and in monitoring for
noncompliance with habitability standards through regular
site visits''.
SEC. 634. MODIFICATIONS TO RULES RELATING TO BASIS OF
BUILDING WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR CREDIT.
(a) Adjusted Basis To Include Portion of Certain Buildings
Used by Low-Income Individuals Who Are Not Tenants and by
Project Employees.--Paragraph (4) of section 42(d) (relating
to special rules relating to determination of adjusted basis)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' in subparagraph (A)
and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) Inclusion of basis of property used to provide
services for certain nontenants.--
``(i) In general.--The adjusted basis of any building
located in a qualified census tract (as defined in paragraph
(5)(C)) shall be determined by taking into account the
adjusted basis of property (of a character subject to the
allowance for depreciation and not otherwise taken into
account) used throughout the taxable year in providing any
community service facility.
``(ii) Limitation.--The increase in the adjusted basis of
any building which is taken into account by reason of clause
(i) shall not exceed 10 percent of the eligible basis of the
qualified low-income housing project of which it is a part.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, all community service
facilities which are part of the same qualified low-income
housing project shall be treated as one facility.
``(iii) Community service facility.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `community service facility' means any
facility designed to serve primarily individuals whose income
is 60 percent or less of area median income (within the
meaning of subsection (g)(1)(B)).''.
(b) Certain Native American Housing Assistance Disregarded
in Determining Whether Building Is Federally Subsidized for
Purposes of the Low-Income Housing Credit.--Subparagraph (E)
of section 42(i)(2) (relating to determination of whether
building is federally subsidized) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by inserting ``or the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25
U.S.C. 4101 et seq.) (as in effect on October 1, 1997)''
after ``this subparagraph)''; and
(2) in the subparagraph heading, by inserting ``or native
american housing assistance'' after ``home assistance''.
SEC. 635. OTHER MODIFICATIONS.
(a) Allocation of Credit Limit to Certain Buildings.--
(1) The first sentence of section 42(h)(1)(E)(ii) is
amended by striking ``(as of'' the first place it appears and
inserting ``(as of the later of the date which is 6 months
after the date that the allocation was made or''.
(2) The last sentence of section 42(h)(3)(C) is amended by
striking ``project which'' and inserting ``project which
fails to meet the 10 percent test under paragraph (1)(E)(ii)
on a date after the close of the calendar year in which the
allocation was made or which''.
(b) Determination of Whether Buildings Are Located in High
Cost Areas.--The first sentence of section 42(d)(5)(C)(ii)(I)
is amended--
(1) by inserting ``either'' before ``in which 50 percent'';
and
(2) by inserting before the period ``or which has a poverty
rate of at least 25 percent''.
SEC. 636. CARRYFORWARD RULES.
(a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 42(h)(3)(D)
(relating to unused housing credit
[[Page 24423]]
carryovers allocated among certain States) is amended by
striking ``the excess'' and all that follows and inserting
``the excess (if any) of--
``(I) the unused State housing credit ceiling for the year
preceding such year, over
``(II) the aggregate housing credit dollar amount allocated
for such year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section
42(h)(3)(C) (relating to State housing credit ceiling) is
amended by striking ``clauses (i) and (iii)'' and inserting
``clauses (i) through (iv)''.
SEC. 637. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise provided in this title, the amendments
made by this title shall apply to--
(1) housing credit dollar amounts allocated after December
31, 2000; and
(2) buildings placed in service after such date to the
extent paragraph (1) of section 42(h) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 does not apply to any building by reason of
paragraph (4) thereof, but only with respect to bonds issued
after such date.
Subtitle E--Other Community Renewal and New Markets Assistance
SEC. 641. TRANSFER OF UNOCCUPIED AND SUBSTANDARD HUD-HELD
HOUSING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS.
Section 204 of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-11a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Flexible Authority.--'' and inserting
``Disposition of HUD-Owned Properties. (a) Flexible Authority
for Multifamily Projects.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Transfer of Unoccupied and Substandard Housing to
Local Governments and Community Development Corporations.--
``(1) Transfer authority.--Notwithstanding the authority
under subsection (a) and the last sentence of section 204(g)
of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1710(g)), the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall transfer
ownership of any qualified HUD property, subject to the
requirements of this section, to a unit of general local
government having jurisdiction for the area in which the
property is located or to a community development corporation
which operates within such a unit of general local government
in accordance with this subsection, but only to the extent
that units of general local government and community
development corporations consent to transfer and the
Secretary determines that such transfer is practicable.
``(2) Qualified hud properties.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `qualified HUD property' means any
property for which, as of the date that notification of the
property is first made under paragraph (3)(B), not less than
6 months have elapsed since the later of the date that the
property was acquired by the Secretary or the date that the
property was determined to be unoccupied or substandard, that
is owned by the Secretary and is--
``(A) an unoccupied multifamily housing project;
``(B) a substandard multifamily housing project; or
``(C) an unoccupied single family property that--
``(i) has been determined by the Secretary not to be an
eligible asset under section 204(h) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1710(h)); or
``(ii) is an eligible asset under such section 204(h),
but--
``(I) is not subject to a specific sale agreement under
such section; and
``(II) has been determined by the Secretary to be
inappropriate for continued inclusion in the program under
such section 204(h) pursuant to paragraph (10) of such
section.
``(3) Timing.--The Secretary shall establish procedures
that provide for--
``(A) time deadlines for transfers under this subsection;
``(B) notification to units of general local government and
community development corporations of qualified HUD
properties in their jurisdictions;
``(C) such units and corporations to express interest in
the transfer under this subsection of such properties;
``(D) a right of first refusal for transfer of qualified
HUD properties to units of general local government and
community development corporations, under which--
``(i) the Secretary shall establish a period during which
the Secretary may not transfer such properties except to such
units and corporations;
``(ii) the Secretary shall offer qualified HUD properties
that are single family properties for purchase by units of
general local government at a cost of $1 for each property,
but only to the extent that the costs to the Federal
Government of disposal at such price do not exceed the costs
to the Federal Government of disposing of property subject to
the procedures for single family property established by the
Secretary pursuant to the authority under the last sentence
of section 204(g) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1710(g));
``(iii) the Secretary may accept an offer to purchase a
property made by a community development corporation only if
the offer provides for purchase on a cost recovery basis; and
``(iv) the Secretary shall accept an offer to purchase such
a property that is made during such period by such a unit or
corporation and that complies with the requirements of this
paragraph;
``(E) a written explanation, to any unit of general local
government or community development corporation making an
offer to purchase a qualified HUD property under this
subsection that is not accepted, of the reason that such
offer was not acceptable.
``(4) Other disposition.--With respect to any qualified HUD
property, if the Secretary does not receive an acceptable
offer to purchase the property pursuant to the procedure
established under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall dispose
of the property to the unit of general local government in
which property is located or to community development
corporations located in such unit of general local government
on a negotiated, competitive bid, or other basis, on such
terms as the Secretary deems appropriate.
``(5) Satisfaction of indebtedness.--Before transferring
ownership of any qualified HUD property pursuant to this
subsection, the Secretary shall satisfy any indebtedness
incurred in connection with the property to be transferred,
by canceling the indebtedness.
``(6) Determination of status of properties.--To ensure
compliance with the requirements of this subsection, the
Secretary shall take the following actions:
``(A) Upon enactment.--Upon the enactment of this
subsection, the Secretary shall promptly assess each
residential property owned by the Secretary to determine
whether such property is a qualified HUD property.
``(B) Upon acquisition.--Upon acquiring any residential
property, the Secretary shall promptly determine whether the
property is a qualified HUD property.
``(C) Updates.--The Secretary shall periodically reassess
the residential properties owned by the Secretary to
determine whether any such properties have become qualified
HUD properties.
``(7) Tenant leases.--This subsection shall not affect the
terms or the enforceability of any contract or lease entered
into with respect to any residential property before the date
that such property becomes a qualified HUD property.
``(8) Use of property.--Property transferred under this
subsection shall be used only for appropriate neighborhood
revitalization efforts, including homeownership, rental
units, commercial space, and parks, consistent with local
zoning regulations, local building codes, and subdivision
regulations and restrictions of record.
``(9) Inapplicability to properties made available for
homeless.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, this subsection shall not apply to any properties
that the Secretary determines are to be made available for
use by the homeless pursuant to subpart E of part 291 of
title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, during the period that
the properties are so available.
``(10) Protection of existing contracts.--This subsection
may not be construed to alter, affect, or annul any legally
binding obligations entered into with respect to a qualified
HUD property before the property becomes a qualified HUD
property.
``(11) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(A) Community development corporation.--The term
`community development corporation' means a nonprofit
organization whose primary purpose is to promote community
development by providing housing opportunities for low-income
families.
``(B) Cost recovery basis.--The term `cost recovery basis'
means, with respect to any sale of a residential property by
the Secretary, that the purchase price paid by the purchaser
is equal to or greater than the sum of: (i) the appraised
value of the property, as determined in accordance with such
requirements as the Secretary shall establish; and (ii) the
costs incurred by the Secretary in connection with such
property during the period beginning on the date on which the
Secretary acquires title to the property and ending on the
date on which the sale is consummated.
``(C) Multifamily housing project.--The term `multifamily
housing project' has the meaning given the term in section
203 of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of
1978.
``(D) Residential property.--The term `residential
property' means a property that is a multifamily housing
project or a single family property.
``(E) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.
``(F) Severe physical problems.--The term `severe physical
problems' means, with respect to a dwelling unit, that the
unit--
``(i) lacks hot or cold piped water, a flush toilet, or
both a bathtub and a shower in the unit, for the exclusive
use of that unit;
``(ii) on not less than three separate occasions during the
preceding winter months, was uncomfortably cold for a period
of more than 6 consecutive hours due to a malfunction of the
heating system for the unit;
``(iii) has no functioning electrical service, exposed
wiring, any room in which there is not a functioning
electrical outlet, or has experienced three or more blown
fuses or tripped circuit breakers during the preceding 90-day
period;
``(iv) is accessible through a public hallway in which
there are no working light fixtures, loose or missing steps
or railings, and no elevator; or
``(v) has severe maintenance problems, including water
leaks involving the roof, windows, doors, basement, or pipes
or plumbing fixtures, holes or open cracks in walls or
ceilings, severe paint peeling or broken plaster, and signs
of rodent infestation.
[[Page 24424]]
``(G) Single family property.--The term `single family
property' means a 1- to 4-family residence.
``(H) Substandard.--The term `substandard' means, with
respect to a multifamily housing project, that 25 percent or
more of the dwelling units in the project have severe
physical problems.
``(I) Unit of general local government.--The term `unit of
general local government' has the meaning given such term in
section 102(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974.
``(J) Unoccupied.--The term `unoccupied' means, with
respect to a residential property, that the unit of general
local government having jurisdiction over the area in which
the project is located has certified in writing that the
property is not inhabited.
``(12) Regulations.--
``(A) Interim.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue
such interim regulations as are necessary to carry out this
subsection.
``(B) Final.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue such
final regulations as are necessary to carry out this
subsection.''.
SEC. 642. TRANSFER OF HUD ASSETS IN REVITALIZATION AREAS.
In carrying out the program under section 204(h) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1710(h)), upon the request of
the chief executive officer of a county or the government of
appropriate jurisdiction and not later than 60 days after
such request is made, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall designate as a revitalization area all
portions of such county that meet the criteria for such
designation under paragraph (3) of such section.
SEC. 643. RISK-SHARING DEMONSTRATION.
Section 249 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-
14) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and inserting the
following:
``risk-sharing demonstration'';
(2) by striking ``reinsurance'' each place such term
appears and insert ``risk-sharing'';
(3) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting ``and with insured
community development financial institutions'' after
``private mortgage insurers'';
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by striking ``two'' and inserting ``four''; and
(ii) by striking ``March 15, 1988'' and inserting ``the
expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2000''; and
(C) in the third sentence--
(i) by striking ``insured'' and inserting ``for which risk
of nonpayment is shared''; and
(ii) by striking ``10 percent'' and inserting ``20
percent'';
(4) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``to provide'' and inserting ``, in
providing'';
(ii) by striking ``through'' and inserting ``, to enter
into''; and
(iii) by inserting ``and with insured community development
financial institutions'' before the period at the end;
(B) in the second sentence, by inserting ``and insured
community development financial institutions'' after
``private mortgage insurance companies'';
(C) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(1) assume a secondary percentage of loss on any mortgage
insured pursuant to section 203(b), 234, or 245 covering a
one- to four-family dwelling, which percentage of loss shall
be set forth in the risk-sharing contract, with the first
percentage of loss to be borne by the Secretary;''; and
(D) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``carry out (under appropriate delegation)
such'' and inserting ``perform or delegate underwriting,'';
(ii) by striking ``function as the Secretary pursuant to
regulations,'' and inserting ``functions as the Secretary'';
and
(iii) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and shall set forth in the risk-sharing
contract'';
(5) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``of'' the first place it appears and
inserting ``for'';
(ii) by inserting ``received by the Secretary with a
private mortgage insurer or insured community development
financial institution'' after ``sharing of premiums''
(iii) by striking ``insurance reserves'' and inserting
``loss reserves'';
(iv) by striking ``such insurance'' and inserting ``such
risk-sharing contract''; and
(v) by striking ``right'' and inserting ``rights''; and
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by inserting ``or insured community development
financial institution'' after ``private mortgage insurance
company''; and
(ii) by striking ``for insurance'' and inserting ``for
risk-sharing'';
(6) in subsection (d), by inserting ``or insured community
development financial institution'' after ``private mortgage
insurance company''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Insured Community Development Financial
Institution.--For purposes of this section, the term `insured
community development financial institution' means a
community development financial institution, as such term is
defined in section 103 of Reigle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4702) that is
an insured depository institution (as such term is defined in
section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813)) or an insured credit union (as such term is defined in
section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C.
1752)).''.
SEC. 644. PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE;
SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS.
Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following part:
``Part G--Services Provided Through Religious Organizations
``SEC. 581. APPLICABILITY TO DESIGNATED PROGRAMS.
``(a) Designated Programs.--Subject to subsection (b), this
part applies to discretionary and formula grant programs
administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration that make awards of financial
assistance to public or private entities for the purpose of
carrying out activities to prevent or treat substance abuse
(in this part referred to as a `designated program').
Designated programs include the program under subpart II of
part B of title XIX (relating to formula grants to the
States).
``(b) Limitation.--This part does not apply to any award of
financial assistance under a designated program for a purpose
other than the purpose specified in subsection (a).
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this part (and subject
to subsection (b)):
``(1) The term `designated program' has the meaning given
such term in subsection (a).
``(2) The term `financial assistance' means a grant,
cooperative agreement, or contract.
``(3) The term `program beneficiary' means an individual
who receives program services.
``(4) The term `program participant' means a public or
private entity that has received financial assistance under a
designated program.
``(5) The term `program services' means treatment for
substance abuse, or preventive services regarding such abuse,
provided pursuant to an award of financial assistance under a
designated program.
``(6) The term `religious organization' means a nonprofit
religious organization.
``SEC. 582. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AS PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a religious organization, on the same basis as any other
nonprofit private provider--
``(1) may receive financial assistance under a designated
program; and
``(2) may be a provider of services under a designated
program.
``(b) Religious Organizations.--The purpose of this section
is to allow religious organizations to be program
participants on the same basis as any other nonprofit private
provider without impairing the religious character of such
organizations, and without diminishing the religious freedom
of program beneficiaries.
``(c) Nondiscrimination Against Religious Organizations.--
``(1) Eligibility as program participants.--Religious
organizations are eligible to be program participants on the
same basis as any other nonprofit private organization as
long as the programs are implemented consistent with the
Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to restrict the ability of the Federal
Government, or a State or local government receiving funds
under such programs, to apply to religious organizations the
same eligibility conditions in designated programs as are
applied to any other nonprofit private organization.
``(2) Nondiscrimination.--Neither the Federal Government
nor a State or local government receiving funds under
designated programs shall discriminate against an
organization that is or applies to be a program participant
on the basis that the organization has a religious character.
``(d) Religious Character and Freedom.--
``(1) Religious organizations.--Except as provided in this
section, any religious organization that is a program
participant shall retain its independence from Federal,
State, and local government, including such organization's
control over the definition, development, practice, and
expression of its religious beliefs.
``(2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal
Government nor a State shall require a religious organization
to--
``(A) alter its form of internal governance; or
``(B) remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other
symbols,
in order to be a program participant.
``(e) Employment Practices.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to modify or affect the provisions of any other
Federal or State law or regulation that relates to
discrimination in employment. A religious organization's
exemption provided under section 702 of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 regarding employment practices shall not be affected
by its participation in, or receipt of funds from, a
designated program.
``(f) Rights of Program Beneficiaries.--
``(1) In general.--If an individual who is a program
beneficiary or a prospective program beneficiary objects to
the religious character of a program participant, within a
reasonable period of time after the date of such objection
such program participant shall refer such individual to, and
the appropriate Federal, State, or local government that
administers a designated program or is a program participant
shall provide
[[Page 24425]]
to such individual (if otherwise eligible for such services),
program services that--
``(A) are from an alternative provider that is accessible
to, and has the capacity to provide such services to, such
individual; and
``(B) have a value that is not less than the value of the
services that the individual would have received from the
program participant to which the individual had such
objection.
Upon referring a program beneficiary to an alternative
provider, the program participant shall notify the
appropriate Federal, State, or local government agency that
administers the program of such referral.
``(2) Notices.--Program participants, public agencies that
refer individuals to designated programs, and the appropriate
Federal, State, or local governments that administer
designated programs or are program participants shall ensure
that notice is provided to program beneficiaries or
prospective program beneficiaries of their rights under this
section.
``(3) Additional requirements.--A program participant
making a referral pursuant to paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) prior to making such referral, consider any list that
the State or local government makes available of entities in
the geographic area that provide program services; and
``(B) ensure that the individual makes contact with the
alternative provider to which the individual is referred.
``(4) Nondiscrimination.--A religious organization that is
a program participant shall not in providing program services
or engaging in outreach activities under designated programs
discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective
program beneficiary on the basis of religion or religious
belief.
``(g) Fiscal Accountability.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
religious organization that is a program participant shall be
subject to the same regulations as other recipients of awards
of Federal financial assistance to account, in accordance
with generally accepted auditing principles, for the use of
the funds provided under such awards.
``(2) Limited audit.--With respect to the award involved, a
religious organization that is a program participant shall
segregate Federal amounts provided under award into a
separate account from non-Federal funds. Only the award funds
shall be subject to audit by the government.
``(h) Compliance.--With respect to compliance with this
section by an agency, a religious organization may obtain
judicial review of agency action in accordance with chapter 7
of title 5, United States Code.
``SEC. 583. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
``No funds provided under a designated program shall be
expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or
proselytization.
``SEC. 584. EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL IN DRUG
TREATMENT PROGRAMS.
``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
``(1) establishing unduly rigid or uniform educational
qualification for counselors and other personnel in drug
treatment programs may undermine the effectiveness of such
programs; and
``(2) such educational requirements for counselors and
other personnel may hinder or prevent the provision of needed
drug treatment services.
``(b) Nondiscrimination.--In determining whether personnel
of a program participant that has a record of successful drug
treatment for the preceding three years have satisfied State
or local requirements for education and training, a State or
local government shall not discriminate against education and
training provided to such personnel by a religious
organization, so long as such education and training includes
basic content substantially equivalent to the content
provided by nonreligious organizations that the State or
local government would credit for purposes of determining
whether the relevant requirements have been satisfied.''.
Subtitle F--Other Provisions
SEC. 651. ACCELERATION OF PHASE-IN OF INCREASE IN VOLUME CAP
ON PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 146(d)
(relating to State ceiling) are amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The State ceiling applicable to any
State for any calendar year shall be the greater of--
``(A) an amount equal to $75 ($62.50 in the case of
calendar year 2001) multiplied by the State population, or
``(B) $225,000,000 ($187,500,000 in the case of calendar
year 2001).
``(2) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of a calendar
year after 2002, each of the dollar amounts contained in
paragraph (1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2001' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.
If any increase determined under the preceding sentence is
not a multiple of $5 ($5,000 in the case of the dollar amount
in paragraph (1)(B)), such increase shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple thereof.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to calendar years after 2000.
SEC. 652. MODIFICATIONS TO EXPENSING OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REMEDIATION COSTS.
(a) Expensing Not Limited to Sites in Targeted Areas.--
Subsection (c) of section 198 is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Qualified Contaminated Site.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified contaminated site'
means any area--
``(A) which is held by the taxpayer for use in a trade or
business or for the production of income, or which is
property described in section 1221(a)(1) in the hands of the
taxpayer, and
``(B) at or on which there has been a release (or threat of
release) or disposal of any hazardous substance.
``(2) National priorities listed sites not included.--Such
term shall not include any site which is on, or proposed for,
the national priorities list under section 105(a)(8)(B) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (as in effect on the date of the
enactment of this section).
``(3) Taxpayer must receive statement from state
environmental agency.--An area shall be treated as a
qualified contaminated site with respect to expenditures paid
or incurred during any taxable year only if the taxpayer
receives a statement from the appropriate agency of the State
in which such area is located that such area meets the
requirement of paragraph (1)(B).
``(4) Appropriate state agency.--For purposes of paragraph
(3), the chief executive officer of each State may, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, designate the appropriate State
environmental agency within 60 days of the date of the
enactment of this section. If the chief executive officer of
a State has not designated an appropriate environmental
agency within such 60-day period, the appropriate
environmental agency for such State shall be designated by
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.''.
(b) Extension of Termination Date.--Subsection (h) of
section 198 is amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting
``2003''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to expenditures paid or incurred after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 653. EXTENSION OF DC HOMEBUYER TAX CREDIT.
Section 1400C(i) (relating to application of section) is
amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''.
TITLE VII--ADMINISTRATIVE, MISCELLANEOUS, AND TECHNICAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Administrative Provisions
SEC. 701. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 3003(a)(1) of the Federal Reports Elimination and
Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note) shall not apply to
any report required to be submitted under any of the
following provisions of law:
(1) Section 13031(f) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)).
(2) Section 16(c) of the Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C.
81p(c)).
(3) The following provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930:
(A) Section 330(c)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1330(c)(1)).
(B) Section 607(c) (19 U.S.C. 1607(c)).
(4) Section 5 of the International Coffee Agreement Act of
1980 (19 U.S.C. 1356n).
(5) Section 351(a)(2) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
(19 U.S.C. 1981(a)(2)).
(6) Section 502 of the Automotive Products Trade Act of
1965 (19 U.S.C. 2032).
(7) Section 3131 of the Customs Enforcement Act of 1986 (19
U.S.C. 2081).
(8) The following provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2101 et seq.):
(A) Section 102(b)(4)(A)(ii)(I) (19 U.S.C.
2112(b)(4)(A)(ii)(I)).
(B) Section 102(e)(1) (19 U.S.C. 2112(e)(1)).
(C) Section 102(e)(2) (19 U.S.C. 2112(e)(2)).
(D) Section 104(d) (19 U.S.C. 2114(d)).
(E) Section 125(e) (19 U.S.C. 2135(e)).
(F) Section 135(e)(1) (19 U.S.C. 2155(e)(1)).
(G) Section 141(c) (19 U.S.C. 2171(c)).
(H) Section 162 (19 U.S.C. 2212).
(I) Section 163(b) (19 U.S.C. 2213(b)).
(J) Section 163(c) (19 U.S.C. 2213(c)).
(K) Section 203(b) (19 U.S.C. 2253(b)).
(L) Section 302(b)(2)(C) (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)(2)(C)).
(M) Section 303 (19 U.S.C. 2413).
(N) Section 309 (19 U.S.C. 2419).
(O) Section 407(a) (19 U.S.C. 2437(a)).
(P) Section 502(f) (19 U.S.C. 2462(f)).
(Q) Section 504 (19 U.S.C. 2464).
(9) The following provisions of the Trade Agreements Act of
1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.):
(A) Section 2(b) (19 U.S.C. 2503(b)).
(B) Section 3(c) (19 U.S.C. 2504(c)).
(C) Section 305(c) (19 U.S.C. 2515(c)).
(10) Section 303(g)(1) of the Convention on Cultural
Property Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 2602(g)(1)).
(11) The following provisions of the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.):
(A) Section 212(a)(1)(A) (19 U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)(A)).
(B) Section 212(a)(2) (19 U.S.C. 2702(a)(2)).
(12) The following provisions of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.):
(A) Section 1102 (19 U.S.C. 2902).
(B) Section 1103 (19 U.S.C. 2903).
(C) Section 1206(b) (19 U.S.C. 3006(b)).
(13) Section 123(a) of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-382) (19 U.S.C. 2083).
(14) Section 243(b)(2) of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Expansion Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-382).
[[Page 24426]]
(15) The following provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986:
(A) Section 6103(p)(5).
(B) Section 7608.
(C) Section 7802(f)(3).
(D) Section 8022(3).
(E) Section 9602(a).
(16) The following provisions relating to the revenue laws
of the United States:
(A) Section 1552(c) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (100
Stat. 2753).
(B) Section 231 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (26
U.S.C. 801 note).
(C) Section 208 of the Tax Treatment Extension Act of 1977
(26 U.S.C. 911 note).
(D) Section 7105 of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue
Act of 1988 (45 U.S.C. 369).
(17) Section 4008 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1308).
(18) Section 426 of the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C.
936(b)).
(19) Section 7502(g) of title 31, United States Code.
(20) The following provisions of the Social Security Act:
(A) Section 215(i)(2)(C)(i) (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(C)(i)).
(B) Section 221(i)(2) (42 U.S.C. 421(i)(2)).
(C) Section 221(i)(3) (42 U.S.C. 421(i)(3)).
(D) Section 233(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 433(e)(1)).
(E) Section 452(a)(10) (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(10)).
(F) Section 452(g)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 652(g)(3)(B)).
(G) Section 506(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 706(a)).
(H) Section 908 (42 U.S.C. 1108).
(I) Section 1114(f) (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)).
(J) Section 1120 (42 U.S.C. 1320).
(K) Section 1161 (42 U.S.C. 1320c-10).
(L) Section 1875(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395ll(b)).
(M) Section 1881 (42 U.S.C. 1395rr).
(N) Section 1882 (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(f)(2)).
(21) Section 104(b) of the Social Security Independence and
Program Improvements Act of 1994 (42 USC 904 note).
(22) Section 10 of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937 (45
U.S.C. 231f).
(23) The following provisions of the Railroad Retirement
Act of 1974:
(A) Section 22(a)(1) (45 U.S.C. 231u(a)(1)).
(B) Section 22(b)(1) (45 U.S.C. 231u(b)(1)).
(24) Section 502 of the Railroad Retirement Solvency Act of
1983 (45 U.S.C. 231f-1).
(25) Section 47121(c) of title 49, United States Code.
(26) The following provisions of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203; 101 Stat.
1330-182):
(A) Section 4007(c)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1395ww note).
(B) Section 4079 (42 U.S.C. 1395mm note).
(C) Section 4205 (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3 note).
(D) Section 4215 (42 U.S.C. 1396r note).
(27) The following provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (Public Law 95-452):
(A) Section 5(b).
(B) Section 5(d).
(28) The following provisions of the Public Health Service
Act:
(A) In section 308(a) (42 U.S.C. 242m(a)), subparagraphs
(A), (B), (C), and (D) of paragraph (1).
(B) Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 283).
(29) Section 404 of the Health Services and Centers
Amendments of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 242p) (Public Law 95-626).
(30) The following provisions of the Older Americans Act of
1965:
(A) Section 206(d) (42 U.S.C. 3017(d)).
(B) Section 207 (42 U.S.C. 3018).
(31) Section 308 of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42
U.S.C. 6106a(b)).
(32) Section 509(c)(3) of the Americans with Disabilities
Act 0f 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12209(c)(3)).
(33) Section 4207(f) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-1 note).
SEC. 702. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES FOR IRS COMPLIANCE WITH
CERTAIN NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Annual Installment Agreement Notice.--Section 3506 of
the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998 is amended by striking ``July 1, 2000'' and inserting
``September 1, 2001''.
(b) Notice Requirements Relating to Computation of
Penalty.--Subsection (c) of section 3306 of the Internal
Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 is
amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2000'' and inserting ``June
30, 2001'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of
any notice of penalty issued after June 30, 2001, and before
July 1, 2003, the requirements of section 6751(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as met if such
notice contains a telephone number at which the taxpayer can
request a copy of the taxpayer's assessment and payment
history with respect to such penalty.''.
(c) Notice Requirements Relating to Interest Imposed.--
Subsection (c) of section 3308 of the Internal Revenue
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 is amended--
(1) by striking ``December 31, 2000'' and inserting ``June
30, 2001'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of
any notice issued after June 30, 2001, and before July 1,
2003, to which section 6631 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 applies, the requirements of section 6631 of such Code
shall be treated as met if such notice contains a telephone
number at which the taxpayer can request a copy of the
taxpayer's payment history relating to interest amounts
included in such notice.''.
SEC. 703. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS.
Paragraph (6), and the last sentence, of section 7608(c)
are each amended by striking ``January 1, 2001'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2006''.
SEC. 704. CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO
CLOSING AND SIMILAR AGREEMENTS AND TO
AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
(a) Closing and Similar Agreements Treated As Return
Information.--Paragraph (2) of section 6103(b) (defining
return information) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end
of subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (C), and by inserting after subparagraph (C) the
following new subparagraph:
``(D) any agreement under section 7121, and any similar
agreement, and any background information related to such an
agreement or request for such an agreement,''.
(b) Agreements With Foreign Governments.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter B of chapter 61 (relating to
miscellaneous provisions) is amended by inserting after
section 6104 the following new section:
``SEC. 6105. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION ARISING UNDER
TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
``(a) In General.--Tax convention information shall not be
disclosed.
``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply--
``(1) to the disclosure of tax convention information to
persons or authorities (including courts and administrative
bodies) which are entitled to such disclosure pursuant to a
tax convention,
``(2) to any generally applicable procedural rules
regarding applications for relief under a tax convention, or
``(3) in any case not described in paragraphs (1) or (2),
to the disclosure of any tax convention information not
relating to a particular taxpayer if the Secretary
determines, after consultation with each other party to the
tax convention, that such disclosure would not impair tax
administration.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Tax convention information.--The term `tax convention
information' means any--
``(A) agreement entered into with the competent authority
of one or more foreign governments pursuant to a tax
convention,
``(B) application for relief under a tax convention,
``(C) any background information related to such agreement
or application,
``(D) document implementing such agreement, and
``(E) any other information exchanged pursuant to a tax
convention which is treated as confidential or secret under
the tax convention.
``(2) Tax convention.--The term `tax convention' means--
``(A) any income tax or gift and estate tax convention, or
``(B) any other convention or bilateral agreement
(including multilateral conventions and agreements and any
agreement with a possession of the United States) providing
for the avoidance of double taxation, the prevention of
fiscal evasion, nondiscrimination with respect to taxes, the
exchange of tax relevant information with the United States,
or mutual assistance in tax matters.
``(d) Cross References.--
``For penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of tax convention
information which is return or return information, see sections 7213,
7213A, and 7431.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter B of chapter 61 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 6104 the following new item:
``Sec. 6105. Confidentiality of information arising under treaty
obligations.''.
(c) Exception From Public Inspection as Written
Determination.--
(1) Closing and similar agreements.--Paragraph (1) of
section 6110(b) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Written determination.--
``(A) In general.--The term `written determination' means a
ruling, determination letter, technical advice memorandum, or
Chief Counsel advice.
``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include any matter
referred to in subparagraph (C) or (D) of section
6103(b)(2).''.
(2) Agreements with foreign governments.--Paragraph (1) of
section 6110(l) is amended by inserting ``or 6105'' after
``6104''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 705. INCREASE IN THRESHOLD FOR JOINT COMMITTEE REPORTS
ON REFUNDS AND CREDITS.
(a) General Rule.--Subsections (a) and (b) of section 6405
are each amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting
``$2,000,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that such amendment shall not apply with respect to
any refund or credit with respect to a report that has been
made before such date of the enactment under section 6405 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 706. TREATMENT OF MISSING CHILDREN WITH RESPECT TO
CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 151 (relating to
additional exemption for dependents) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
[[Page 24427]]
``(6) Treatment of missing children.--
``(A) In general.--Solely for the purposes referred to in
subparagraph (B), a child of the taxpayer--
``(i) who is presumed by law enforcement authorities to
have been kidnapped by someone who is not a member of the
family of such child or the taxpayer, and
``(ii) who was (without regard to this paragraph) the
dependent of the taxpayer for the portion of the taxable year
before the date of the kidnapping,
shall be treated as a dependent of the taxpayer for all
taxable years ending during the period that the child is
kidnapped.
``(B) Purposes.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply solely for
purposes of determining--
``(i) the deduction under this section,
``(ii) the credit under section 24 (relating to child tax
credit), and
``(iii) whether an individual is a surviving spouse or a
head of a household (such terms are defined in section 2).
``(C) Comparable treatment for earned income credit.--For
purposes of section 32, an individual--
``(i) who is presumed by law enforcement authorities to
have been kidnapped by someone who is not a member of the
family of such individual or the taxpayer, and
``(ii) who had, for the taxable year in which the
kidnapping occurred, the same principal place of abode as the
taxpayer for more than one-half of the portion of such year
before the date of the kidnapping,
shall be treated as meeting the requirement of section
32(c)(3)(A)(ii) with respect to a taxpayer for all taxable
years ending during the period that the individual is
kidnapped.
``(D) Termination of treatment.--Subparagraphs (A) and (C)
shall cease to apply as of the first taxable year of the
taxpayer beginning after the calendar year in which there is
a determination that the child is dead (or, if earlier, in
which the child would have attained age 18).''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 707. AMENDMENTS TO STATUTES REFERENCING YIELD ON 52-WEEK
TREASURY BILLS.
(a) Amendment to the Act of February 26, 1931.--Section 6
of the Act of February 26, 1931 (40 U.S.C. 258e-1) (relating
to the interest rate on compensation owed for takings of
property) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the coupon issue yield
equivalent (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury)
of the average accepted auction price for the last auction of
52 week United States Treasury bills settled immediately
before'' and inserting ``the weekly average 1-year constant
maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar
week preceding''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the coupon issue yield
equivalent (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury)
of the average accepted auction price for the last auction of
52 week United States Treasury bills settled immediately
before'' and inserting ``the weekly average 1-year constant
maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar
week preceding''.
(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code.--Section
3612(f)(2)(B) of title 18, United States Code (relating to
the interest rate on unpaid criminal fines and penalties of
more than $2,500) is amended by striking ``the coupon issue
yield equivalent (as determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury) of the average accepted auction price for the last
auction of fifty-two week United States Treasury bills
settled before'' and inserting `the weekly average 1-year
constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar
week preceding.''.
(c) Amendment to the Internal Revenue Code.--Section
995(f)(4) (relating to the interest rate on tax-deferred
liability of shareholders of domestic international sales
corporations) is amended by striking ``the average investment
yield of United States Treasury bills with maturities of 52
weeks which were auctioned during the 1-year period'' and
inserting ``the average of the 1-year constant maturity
Treasury yields, as published by the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, for the 1-year period''.
(d) Amendments to Title 28, United States Code.--
(1) Amendment to section 1961.--Section 1961(a) of title
28, United States Code (relating to the interest rate on
money judgments in civil cases recovered in Federal district
court) is amended by striking ``the coupon issue yield
equivalent (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury)
of the average accepted auction price for the last auction of
fifty-two week United States Treasury bills settled
immediately prior to'' and inserting ``the weekly average 1-
year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the
calendar week preceding.''.
(2) Amendment to section 2516.--Section 2516(b) of title
28, United States Code (relating to the interest rate on a
judgment against the United States affirmed by the Supreme
Court after review on petition of the United States) is
amended by striking ``the coupon issue yield equivalent (as
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury) of the average
accepted auction price for the last auction of fifty-two week
United States Treasury bills settled immediately before'' and
inserting ``the weekly average 1-year constant maturity
Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding''.
SEC. 708. ADJUSTMENTS FOR CONSUMER PRICE INDEX ERROR.
(a) Determinations by OMB.--As soon as practicable after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall determine with respect
to each applicable Federal benefit program whether the CPI
computation error for 1999 has or will result in a shortfall
in payments to beneficiaries under such program (as compared
to payments that would have been made if the error had not
occurred). As soon as practicable after the date of the
enactment of this Act, but not later than 60 days after such
date, the Director shall direct the head of the Federal
agency which administers such program to make a payment or
payments that, insofar as the Director finds practicable and
feasible--
(1) are targeted to the amount of the shortfall experienced
by individual beneficiaries, and
(2) compensate for the shortfall.
(b) Coordination With Federal Agencies.--As soon as
practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, each
Federal agency that administers an applicable Federal benefit
program shall, in accordance with such guidelines as are
issued by the Director pursuant to this section, make an
initial determination of whether, and the extent to which,
the CPI computation error for 1999 has or will result in a
shortfall in payments to beneficiaries of an applicable
Federal benefit program administered by such agency. Not
later than 30 days after such date, the head of such agency
shall submit a report to the Director and to each House of
the Congress of such determination, together with a complete
description of the nature of the shortfall.
(c) Implementation Pursuant to Agency Reports.--Upon
receipt of the report submitted by a Federal agency pursuant
to subsection (b), the Director shall review the initial
determination of the agency, the agency's description of the
nature of the shortfall, and the compensation payments
proposed by the agency. Prior to directing payment of such
payments pursuant to subsection (a), the Director shall make
appropriate adjustments (if any) in the compensation payments
proposed by the agency that the Director determines are
necessary to comply with the requirements of subsection (a)
and transmit to the agency a summary report of the review,
indicating any adjustments made by the Director. The agency
shall make the compensation payments as directed by the
Director pursuant to subsection (a) in accordance with the
Director's summary report.
(d) Income Disregard Under Federal Means-Tested Benefit
Programs.--A payment made under this section to compensate
for a shortfall in benefits shall, in accordance with
guidelines issued by the Director pursuant to this section,
be disregarded in determining income under title VIII of the
Social Security Act or any applicable Federal benefit program
that is means-tested.
(e) Funding.--Funds otherwise available under each
applicable Federal benefit program for making benefit
payments under such program are hereby made available for
making compensation payments under this section in connection
with such program.
(f) No Judicial Review.--No action taken pursuant to this
section shall be subject to judicial review.
(g) Director's Report.--Not later than April 1, 2001, the
Director shall submit to each House of the Congress a report
on the activities performed by the Director pursuant to this
section.
(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Applicable federal benefit program.--The term
``applicable Federal benefit program'' means any program of
the Government of the United States providing for regular or
periodic payments or cash assistance paid directly to
individual beneficiaries, as determined by the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
(2) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means a
department, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of
the United States.
(3) CPI computation error for 1999.--The term ``CPI
computation error for 1999'' means the error in the
computation of the Consumer Price Index announced by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics on September 28, 2000.
(i) Tax Provisions.--If any Consumer Price Index (as
defined in section 1(f)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) reflects the CPI computation error for 1999--
(1) the correct amount of such Index shall (in such manner
and to such extent as the Secretary of the Treasury
determines to be appropriate) be taken into account for
purposes of such Code, and
(2) tables prescribed under section 1(f) of such Code to
reflect such correct amount shall apply in lieu of any tables
that were prescribed based on the erroneous amount.
SEC. 709. PREVENTION OF DUPLICATION OF LOSS THROUGH
ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES GIVING RISE TO A
DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Section 358 (relating to basis to
distributees) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(h) Special Rules for Assumption of Liabilities To Which
Subsection (d) Does Not Apply.--
``(1) In general.--If, after application of the other
provisions of this section to an exchange
[[Page 24428]]
or series of exchanges, the basis of property to which
subsection (a)(1) applies exceeds the fair market value of
such property, then such basis shall be reduced (but not
below such fair market value) by the amount (determined as of
the date of the exchange) of any liability--
``(A) which is assumed in exchange for such property, and
``(B) with respect to which subsection (d)(1) does not
apply to the assumption.
``(2) Exceptions.--Except as provided by the Secretary,
paragraph (1) shall not apply to any liability if--
``(A) the trade or business with which the liability is
associated is transferred to the person assuming the
liability as part of the exchange, or
``(B) substantially all of the assets with which the
liability is associated are transferred to the person
assuming the liability as part of the exchange.
``(3) Liability.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
`liability' shall include any fixed or contingent obligation
to make payment, without regard to whether the obligation is
otherwise taken into account for purposes of this title.''
(b) Determination of Amount of Liability Assumed.--Section
357(d)(1) is amended by inserting ``section 358(h),'' after
``section 358(d),''.
(c) Application of Comparable Rules to Partnerships and S
Corporations.--The Secretary of the Treasury or his
delegate--
(1) shall prescribe rules which provide appropriate
adjustments under subchapter K of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent the acceleration or
duplication of losses through the assumption of (or transfer
of assets subject to) liabilities described in section
358(h)(3) of such Code (as added by subsection (a)) in
transactions involving partnerships, and
(2) may prescribe rules which provide appropriate
adjustments under subchapter S of chapter 1 of such Code in
transactions described in paragraph (1) involving S
corporations rather than partnerships.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to assumptions of liability after October 18, 1999.
(2) Rules.--The rules prescribed under subsection (c) shall
apply to assumptions of liability after October 18, 1999, or
such later date as may be prescribed in such rules.
Subtitle B--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 710. REPEAL OF 4.3-CENT MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAXES ON
RAILROADS AND INLAND WATERWAY TRANSPORTATION
WHICH REMAIN IN GENERAL FUND.
(a) Taxes on Trains.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 4041(a)(1) is
amended by striking ``or a diesel-powered train'' each place
it appears and by striking ``or train''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (C) of section 4041(a)(1) is amended by
striking clause (ii) and by redesignating clause (iii) as
clause (ii).
(B) Subparagraph (C) of section 4041(b)(1) is amended by
striking all that follows ``section 6421(e)(2)'' and
inserting a period.
(C) Subsection (d) of section 4041 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting
after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
``(3) Diesel fuel used in trains.--There is hereby imposed
a tax of 0.1 cent per gallon on any liquid other than
gasoline (as defined in section 4083)--
``(A) sold by any person to an owner, lessee, or other
operator of a diesel-powered train for use as a fuel in such
train, or
``(B) used by any person as a fuel in a diesel-powered
train unless there was a taxable sale of such fuel under
subparagraph (A).
No tax shall be imposed by this paragraph on the sale or use
of any liquid if tax was imposed on such liquid under section
4081.''
(D) Subsection (e) of section 4082 is amended by striking
``section 4041(a)(1)'' and inserting ``subsections (d)(3) and
(a)(1) of section 4041, respectively''.
(E) Paragraph (3) of section 4083(a) is amended by striking
``or a diesel-powered train''.
(F) Paragraph (3) of section 6421(f) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Gasoline used in trains.--In the case of gasoline
used as a fuel in a train, this section shall not apply with
respect to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
financing rate under section 4081.''
(G) Paragraph (3) of section 6427(l) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Refund of certain taxes on fuel used in diesel-
powered trains.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
`nontaxable use' includes fuel used in a diesel-powered
train. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the tax
imposed by section 4041(d) and the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate under section 4081
except with respect to fuel sold for exclusive use by a State
or any political subdivision thereof.''
(b) Fuel Used on Inland Waterways.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 4042(b) is
amended by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by
striking ``, and'' at the end of subparagraph (B) and
inserting a period, and by striking subparagraph (C).
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 4042(b)
is amended by striking subparagraph (C).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2001.
SEC. 711. REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF DEDUCTIONS FOR MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
(a) In General.--Section 809 (relating to reductions in
certain deductions of mutual life insurance companies) is
hereby repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments Related to Repeal of Section
809.--
(1) Subsections (a)(2)(B) and (b)(1)(B) of section 807 are
each amended by striking ``the sum of (i)'' and by striking
``plus (ii) any excess described in section 809(a)(2) for the
taxable year,''.
(2)(A) The last sentence of section 807(d)(1) is amended by
striking ``(as defined in section 809(b)(4)(B))''.
(B) Subsection (d) of section 807 is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Statutory reserves.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `statutory reserves' means the aggregate amount set
forth in the annual statement with respect to items described
in subsection (c). Such term shall not include any reserve
attributable to a deferred and uncollected premium if the
establishment of such reserve is not permitted under section
811(c).''
(3) Subsection (c) of section 808 is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Amount of Deduction.--The deduction for policyholder
dividends for any taxable year shall be an amount equal to
the policyholder dividends paid or accrued during the taxable
year.''
(4) Subparagraph (A) of section 812(b)(3) is amended by
striking ``sections 808 and 809'' and inserting ``section
808''.
(5) Subsection (c) of section 817 is amended by striking
``(other than section 809)''.
(6) Subsection (c) of section 842 is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph
(3).
(7) The table of sections for subpart C of part I of
subchapter L of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item
relating to section 809.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 712. REPEAL OF POLICYHOLDERS SURPLUS ACCOUNT PROVISIONS.
(a) Repeal.--Section 815 (relating to distributions to
shareholders from pre-1984 policyholders surplus accounts) is
hereby repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 801 is amended by striking subsection (c).
(2) The table of sections for subpart D of part I of
subchapter L of chapter 1 is amended by striking the item
relating to section 815.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 713. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED AMTRAK BONDS.
(a) In General.--Part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
(relating to credits against tax) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subpart:
``Subpart H--Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Qualified Amtrak Bonds
``Sec. 54. Credit to holders of qualified Amtrak bonds.
``SEC. 54. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED AMTRAK BONDS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who
holds a qualified Amtrak bond on a credit allowance date of
such bond which occurs during the taxable year, there shall
be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter for such taxable year an amount equal to the sum of
the credits determined under subsection (b) with respect to
credit allowance dates during such year on which the taxpayer
holds such bond.
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance
date for a qualified Amtrak bond is 25 percent of the annual
credit determined with respect to such bond.
``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any qualified Amtrak bond is the product of--
``(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
``(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of paragraph
(2), the applicable credit rate with respect to an issue is
the rate equal to an average market yield (as of the day
before the date of sale of the issue) on outstanding long-
term corporate debt obligations (determined under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary).
``(4) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period
ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit
determined under this subsection with respect to such credit
allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit
otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month
period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule
shall apply when the bond is redeemed.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under this part
(other than this subpart and subpart C).
``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable
under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by
paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
[[Page 24429]]
``(d) Qualified Amtrak Bond.--For purposes of this part--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified Amtrak bond' means
any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(A) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are
to be used for any qualified project,
``(B) the bond is issued by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation,
``(C) the issuer--
``(i) designates such bond for purposes of this section,
``(ii) certifies that it meets the State contribution
requirement of paragraph (3) with respect to such project and
that it has received the required State contribution payment
before the issuance of such bond, and
``(iii) certifies that it has obtained the written approval
of the Secretary of Transportation for such project,
including a finding by the Inspector General of the
Department of Transportation that there is a reasonable
likelihood that the proposed program will result in a
positive incremental financial contribution to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation and that the investment
evaluation process includes a return on investment,
leveraging of funds (including State capital and operating
contributions), cost effectiveness, safety improvement,
mobility improvement, and feasibility,
``(D) the term of each bond which is part of such issue
does not exceed 20 years,
``(E) the payment of principal with respect to such bond is
the obligation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(regardless of the establishment of the trust account under
subsection (j)), and
``(F) the issue meets the requirements of subsection (h).
``(2) Treatment of changes in use.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(A), the proceeds of an issue shall not be
treated as used for a qualified project to the extent that
the issuer takes any action within its control which causes
such proceeds not to be used for a qualified project. The
Secretary shall prescribe regulations specifying remedial
actions that may be taken (including conditions to taking
such remedial actions) to prevent an action described in the
preceding sentence from causing a bond to fail to be a
qualified Amtrak bond.
``(3) State contribution requirement.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(C)(ii),
the State contribution requirement of this paragraph is met
with respect to any qualified project if the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation has a written binding
commitment from 1 or more States to make matching
contributions not later than the date of issuance of the
issue of not less than 20 percent of the cost of the
qualified project.
``(B) Use of state matching contributions.--The matching
contributions described in subparagraph (A) with respect to
each qualified project shall be used--
``(i) as necessary to redeem bonds which are a part of the
issue with respect to such project, and
``(ii) in the case of any remaining amount, at the election
of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation and the
contributing State--
``(I) to fund a qualified project,
``(II) to redeem other qualified Amtrak bonds, or
``(III) for the purposes of subclauses (I) and (II).
``(C) State matching contributions may not include federal
funds.--For purposes of this paragraph, State matching
contributions shall not be derived, directly or indirectly,
from Federal funds, including any transfers from the Highway
Trust Fund under section 9503.
``(D) No state contribution requirement for certain
qualified projects.--With respect to any qualified project
described in paragraph (2)(B) or (4) of subsection (e), the
State contribution requirement of this paragraph is zero.
``(4) Qualified project.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified project' means--
``(i) the acquisition, financing, or refinancing of
equipment, rolling stock, and other capital improvements for
the northeast rail corridor between Washington, D.C. and
Boston, Massachusetts (including the project described in
subsection (e)(2)(B)),
``(ii) the acquisition, financing, or refinancing of
equipment, rolling stock, and other capital improvements for
the improvement of train speeds or safety (or both) on the
high-speed rail corridors designated under section 104(d)(2)
of title 23, United States Code, and
``(iii) the acquisition, financing, or refinancing of
equipment, rolling stock, and other capital improvements for
other intercity passenger rail corridors, including station
rehabilitation or construction, track or signal improvements,
or the elimination of grade crossings.
``(B) Refinancing rules.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
a refinancing shall constitute a qualified project only if
the indebtedness being refinanced (including any obligation
directly or indirectly refinanced by such indebtedness) was
originally incurred by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation--
``(i) after the date of the enactment of this section,
``(ii) for a term of not more than 3 years,
``(iii) to finance or acquire capital improvements
described in subparagraph (A), and
``(iv) in anticipation of being refinanced with proceeds of
a qualified Amtrak bond.
``(e) Limitations on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) In general.--There is a qualified Amtrak bond
limitation for each fiscal year. Such limitation is--
``(A) $1,000,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001
through 2010, and
``(B) except as provided in paragraph (5), zero after
fiscal year 2010.
``(2) Bonds for rail corridors.--
``(A) In general.--Not more than $3,000,000,000 of the
limitation under paragraph (1) may be designated for any 1
rail corridor described in clause (i) or (ii) of subsection
(d)(4)(A).
``(B) Specific qualified project allocation.--Of the amount
described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary of
Transportation shall allocate $92,000,000 for the acquisition
and installation of platform facilities, performance of
railroad force account work necessary to complete
improvements below street grade, and any other necessary
improvements related to construction at the railroad station
at the James A. Farley Post Office Building in New York City,
New York.
``(3) Bonds for other projects.--Not more than 10 percent
of the limitation under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year may
be allocated to qualified projects described in subsection
(d)(4)(A)(iii).
``(4) Bonds for alaska railroad.--The Secretary of
Transportation may allocate to the Alaska Railroad a portion
of the qualified Amtrak limitation for any fiscal year in
order to allow the Alaska Railroad to issue bonds which meet
the requirements of this section for use in financing any
project described in subsection (d)(4)(A)(iii). For purposes
of this section, the Alaska Railroad shall be treated in the
same manner as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
``(5) Carryover of unused limitation.--If for any fiscal
year--
``(A) the limitation amount under paragraph (1), exceeds
``(B) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are
designated under subsection (d)(1)(C)(i),
the limitation amount under paragraph (1) for the following
fiscal year (through fiscal year 2014) shall be increased by
the amount of such excess.
``(6) Preference for greater state participation.--In
selecting qualified projects for allocation of the qualified
Amtrak bond limitation under this subsection, the Secretary
of Transportation shall give preference to any project with a
State matching contribution rate exceeding 20 percent.
``(f) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subpart--
``(1) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(2) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance
date' means--
``(A) March 15,
``(B) June 15,
``(C) September 15, and
``(D) December 15.
Such term includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
``(3) State.--The term `State' means the several States and
the District of Columbia, and any subdivision thereof.
``(4) Program.--The term `program' means 1 or more projects
implemented over 1 or more years to support the development
of intercity passenger rail corridors.
``(g) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income
includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer
under this section (determined without regard to subsection
(c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest
income.
``(h) Special Rules Relating to Arbitrage.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an issue shall
be treated as meeting the requirements of this subsection if
as of the date of issuance, the issuer reasonably expects--
``(A) to spend at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the
issue for 1 or more qualified projects within the 3-year
period beginning on such date,
``(B) to incur a binding commitment with a third party to
spend at least 10 percent of the proceeds of the issue, or to
commence construction, with respect to such projects within
the 6-month period beginning on such date, and
``(C) to proceed with due diligence to complete such
projects and to spend the proceeds of the issue.
``(2) Rules regarding continuing compliance after 3-year
determination.--If at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the
issue is not expended for 1 or more qualified projects within
the 3-year period beginning on the date of issuance, an issue
shall be treated as continuing to meet the requirements of
this subsection if either--
``(A) the issuer uses all unspent proceeds of the issue to
redeem bonds of the issue within 90 days after the end of
such 3-year period, or
``(B) the following requirements are met:
``(i) The issuer spends at least 75 percent of the proceeds
of the issue for 1 or more qualified projects within the 3-
year period beginning on the date of issuance.
``(ii) The issuer has proceeded with due diligence to spend
the proceeds of the issue within such 3-year period and
continues to proceed with due diligence to spend such
proceeds.
``(iii) The issuer pays to the Federal Government any
earnings on the proceeds of the issue that accrue after the
end of such 3-year period.
``(iv) Either--
``(I) at least 95 percent of the proceeds of the issue is
expended for 1 or more qualified projects within the 4-year
period beginning on the date of issuance, or
[[Page 24430]]
``(II) the issuer uses all unspent proceeds of the issue to
redeem bonds of the issue within 90 days after the end of
such 4-year period.
``(i) Recapture of Portion of Credit Where Cessation of
Compliance.--
``(1) In general.--If any bond which when issued purported
to be a qualified Amtrak bond ceases to be a qualified Amtrak
bond, the issuer shall pay to the United States (at the time
required by the Secretary) an amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) the aggregate of the credits allowable under this
section with respect to such bond (determined without regard
to subsection (c)) for taxable years ending during the
calendar year in which such cessation occurs and the 2
preceding calendar years, and
``(B) interest at the underpayment rate under section 6621
on the amount determined under subparagraph (A) for each
calendar year for the period beginning on the first day of
such calendar year.
``(2) Failure to pay.--If the issuer fails to timely pay
the amount required by paragraph (1) with respect to such
bond, the tax imposed by this chapter on each holder of any
such bond which is part of such issue shall be increased (for
the taxable year of the holder in which such cessation
occurs) by the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed
under this section to such holder for taxable years beginning
in such 3 calendar years which would have resulted solely
from denying any credit under this section with respect to
such issue for such taxable years.
``(3) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (2) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
paragraph (2) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining --
``(i) the amount of any credit allowable under this part,
or
``(ii) the amount of the tax imposed by section 55.
``(j) Use of Trust Account.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of any matching contribution
with respect to a qualified project described in subsection
(d)(3)(B)(i) or (d)(3)(B)(ii)(II) and the temporary period
investment earnings on proceeds of the issue with respect to
such project, and any earnings thereon, shall be held in a
trust account by a trustee independent of the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation to be used to the extent
necessary to redeem bonds which are part of such issue.
``(2) Use of remaining funds in trust account.--Upon the
repayment of the principal of all qualified Amtrak bonds
issued under this section, any remaining funds in the trust
account described in paragraph (1) shall be available--
``(A) to the trustee described in paragraph (1), to meet
any remaining obligations under any guaranteed investment
contract used to secure earnings sufficient to repay the
principal of such bonds, and
``(B) to the issuer, for any qualified project.
``(k) Other Special Rules.--
``(1) Partnership; s corporation; and other pass-thru
entities.--Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, in
the case of a partnership, trust, S corporation, or other
pass-thru entity, rules similar to the rules of section 41(g)
shall apply with respect to the credit allowable under
subsection (a).
``(2) Bonds held by regulated investment companies.--If any
qualified Amtrak bond is held by a regulated investment
company, the credit determined under subsection (a) shall be
allowed to shareholders of such company under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary.
``(3) Credits may be stripped.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary--
``(A) In general.--There may be a separation (including at
issuance) of the ownership of a qualified Amtrak bond and the
entitlement to the credit under this section with respect to
such bond. In case of any such separation, the credit under
this section shall be allowed to the person who on the credit
allowance date holds the instrument evidencing the
entitlement to the credit and not to the holder of the bond.
``(B) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a separation
described in subparagraph (A), the rules of section 1286
shall apply to the qualified Amtrak bond as if it were a
stripped bond and to the credit under this section as if it
were a stripped coupon.
``(4) Treatment for estimated tax purposes.--Solely for
purposes of sections 6654 and 6655, the credit allowed by
this section to a taxpayer by reason of holding a qualified
Amtrak bond on a credit allowance date shall be treated as if
it were a payment of estimated tax made by the taxpayer on
such date.
``(5) Credit may be transferred.--Nothing in any law or
rule of law shall be construed to limit the transferability
of the credit allowed by this section through sale and
repurchase agreements.
``(6) Reporting.--Issuers of qualified Amtrak bonds shall
submit reports similar to the reports required under section
149(e).''.
(b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 (relating to
returns regarding payments of interest), as amended by
section 505(d), is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(9) Reporting of credit on qualified amtrak bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 54(g) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on
the credit allowance date (as defined in section 54(f)(2)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection
(b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to
subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
``Subpart H. Nonrefundable Credit for Holders of Qualified Amtrak
Bonds.''.
(2) Section 6401(b)(1) is amended by striking ``and G'' and
inserting ``G, and H''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after September 30, 2000.
(e) Multi-Year Capital Spending Plan and Oversight.--
(1) Amtrak capital spending plan.--
(A) In general.--The National Railroad Passenger
Corporation shall annually submit to the President and
Congress a multi-year capital spending plan, as approved by
the Board of Directors of the Corporation.
(B) Contents of plan.--Such plan shall identify the capital
investment needs of the Corporation over a period of not less
than 5 years and the funding sources available to finance
such needs and shall prioritize such needs according to
corporate goals and strategies.
(C) Initial submission date.--The first plan shall be
submitted before the issuance of any qualified Amtrak bonds
by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation pursuant to
section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by
this section).
(2) Oversight of amtrak trust account and qualified
projects.--
(A) Trust account oversight.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall annually report to Congress as to whether the amount
deposited in the trust account established by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation under section 54(i) of such
Code (as so added) is sufficient to fully repay at maturity
the principal of any outstanding qualified Amtrak bonds
issued pursuant to section 54 of such Code (as so added),
together with amounts expected to be deposited into such
account, as certified by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation in accordance with procedures prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury.
(B) Project oversight.--The National Railroad Passenger
Corporation shall contract for an annual independent
assessment of the costs and benefits of the qualified
projects financed by such qualified Amtrak bonds, including
an assessment of the investment evaluation process of the
Corporation. The annual assessment shall be included in the
plan submitted under paragraph (1).
(C) Oversight funding.--Not more than 0.5 percent of the
amounts made available through the issuance of qualified
Amtrak bonds by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
pursuant to section 54 of such Code (as so added) may be used
by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for
assessments described in subparagraph (B).
(f) Protection of Highway Trust Fund.--
(1) Certification by the secretary of the treasury.--The
issuance of any qualified Amtrak bonds by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation or the Alaska Railroad
pursuant to section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(as added by this section) is conditioned on certification by
the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, within 30 days of a request by
the issuer, that with respect to funds of the Highway Trust
Fund described under paragraph (2), the issuer either--
(A) has not received such funds during fiscal years
commencing with fiscal year 2001 and ending before the fiscal
year the bonds are issued, or
(B) has repaid to the Highway Trust Fund any such funds
which were received during such fiscal years.
(2) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to funds
received directly, or indirectly from a State or local
transit authority, from the Highway Trust Fund established
under section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
except for funds authorized to be expended under section
9503(c) of such Code, as in effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(3) No retroactive effect.--Nothing in this subsection
shall adversely affect the entitlement of the holders of
qualified Amtrak bonds to the tax credit allowed pursuant to
section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as so added)
or to repayment of principal upon maturity.
SEC. 714. FARM, FISHING, AND RANCH RISK MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTS.
(a) In General.--Subpart C of part II of subchapter E of
chapter 1 (relating to taxable year for which deductions
taken) is amended by inserting after section 468B the
following new section:
``SEC. 468C. FARM, FISHING, AND RANCH RISK MANAGEMENT
ACCOUNTS.
``(a) Deduction Allowed.--In the case of an individual
engaged in an eligible farming business or commercial
fishing, there shall be allowed as a deduction for any
taxable year the
[[Page 24431]]
amount paid in cash by the taxpayer during the taxable year
to a Farm, Fishing, and Ranch Risk Management Account
(hereinafter referred to as the `FFARRM Account').
``(b) Limitation.--
``(1) Contributions.--The amount which a taxpayer may pay
into the FFARRM Account for any taxable year shall not exceed
20 percent of so much of the taxable income of the taxpayer
(determined without regard to this section) which is
attributable (determined in the manner applicable under
section 1301) to any eligible farming business or commercial
fishing.
``(2) Distributions.--Distributions from a FFARRM Account
may not be used to purchase, lease, or finance any new
fishing vessel, add capacity to any fishery, or otherwise
contribute to the overcapitalization of any fishery. The
Secretary of Commerce shall implement regulations to enforce
this paragraph.
``(c) Eligible Businesses.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Eligible farming business.--The term `eligible
farming business' means any farming business (as defined in
section 263A(e)(4)) which is not a passive activity (within
the meaning of section 469(c)) of the taxpayer.
``(2) Commercial fishing.--The term `commercial fishing'
has the meaning given such term by section (3) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1802) but only if such fishing is not a passive
activity (within the meaning of section 469(c)) of the
taxpayer.
``(d) FFARRM Account.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `FFARRM Account' means a trust
created or organized in the United States for the exclusive
benefit of the taxpayer, but only if the written governing
instrument creating the trust meets the following
requirements:
``(A) No contribution will be accepted for any taxable year
in excess of the amount allowed as a deduction under
subsection (a) for such year.
``(B) The trustee is a bank (as defined in section 408(n))
or another person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that the manner in which such person will
administer the trust will be consistent with the requirements
of this section.
``(C) The assets of the trust consist entirely of cash or
of obligations which have adequate stated interest (as
defined in section 1274(c)(2)) and which pay such interest
not less often than annually.
``(D) All income of the trust is distributed currently to
the grantor.
``(E) The assets of the trust will not be commingled with
other property except in a common trust fund or common
investment fund.
``(2) Account taxed as grantor trust.--The grantor of a
FFARRM Account shall be treated for purposes of this title as
the owner of such Account and shall be subject to tax thereon
in accordance with subpart E of part I of subchapter J of
this chapter (relating to grantors and others treated as
substantial owners).
``(e) Inclusion of Amounts Distributed.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
there shall be includible in the gross income of the taxpayer
for any taxable year--
``(A) any amount distributed from a FFARRM Account of the
taxpayer during such taxable year, and
``(B) any deemed distribution under--
``(i) subsection (f )(1) (relating to deposits not
distributed within 5 years),
``(ii) subsection (f )(2) (relating to cessation in
eligible farming business), and
``(iii) subparagraph (B) or (C) of subsection (f )(3)
(relating to prohibited transactions and pledging account as
security).
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1)(A) shall not apply to--
``(A) any distribution to the extent attributable to income
of the Account, and
``(B) the distribution of any contribution paid during a
taxable year to a FFARRM Account to the extent that such
contribution exceeds the limitation applicable under
subsection (b) if requirements similar to the requirements of
section 408(d)(4) are met.
For purposes of subparagraph (A), distributions shall be
treated as first attributable to income and then to other
amounts.
``(f ) Special Rules.--
``(1) Tax on deposits in account which are not distributed
within 5 years.--
``(A) In general.--If, at the close of any taxable year,
there is a nonqualified balance in any FFARRM Account--
``(i) there shall be deemed distributed from such Account
during such taxable year an amount equal to such balance, and
``(ii) the taxpayer's tax imposed by this chapter for such
taxable year shall be increased by 10 percent of such deemed
distribution.
The preceding sentence shall not apply if an amount equal to
such nonqualified balance is distributed from such Account to
the taxpayer before the due date (including extensions) for
filing the return of tax imposed by this chapter for such
year (or, if earlier, the date the taxpayer files such return
for such year).
``(B) Nonqualified balance.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the term `nonqualified balance' means any balance in the
Account on the last day of the taxable year which is
attributable to amounts deposited in such Account before the
4th preceding taxable year.
``(C) Ordering rule.--For purposes of this paragraph,
distributions from a FFARRM Account (other than distributions
of current income) shall be treated as made from deposits in
the order in which such deposits were made, beginning with
the earliest deposits.
``(2) Cessation in eligible business.--At the close of the
first disqualification period after a period for which the
taxpayer was engaged in an eligible farming business or
commercial fishing, there shall be deemed distributed from
the FFARRM Account of the taxpayer an amount equal to the
balance in such Account (if any) at the close of such
disqualification period. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, the term `disqualification period' means any period
of 2 consecutive taxable years for which the taxpayer is not
engaged in an eligible farming business or commercial
fishing.
``(3) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the
following rules shall apply for purposes of this section:
``(A) Section 220(f )(8) (relating to treatment on death).
``(B) Section 408(e)(2) (relating to loss of exemption of
account where individual engages in prohibited transaction).
``(C) Section 408(e)(4) (relating to effect of pledging
account as security).
``(D) Section 408(g) (relating to community property laws).
``(E) Section 408(h) (relating to custodial accounts).
``(4) Time when payments deemed made.--For purposes of this
section, a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a payment to
a FFARRM Account on the last day of a taxable year if such
payment is made on account of such taxable year and is made
on or before the due date (without regard to extensions) for
filing the return of tax for such taxable year.
``(5) Individual.--For purposes of this section, the term
`individual' shall not include an estate or trust.
``(6) Deduction not allowed for self-employment tax.--The
deduction allowable by reason of subsection (a) shall not be
taken into account in determining an individual's net
earnings from self-employment (within the meaning of section
1402(a)) for purposes of chapter 2.
``(g) Reports.--The trustee of a FFARRM Account shall make
such reports regarding such Account to the Secretary and to
the person for whose benefit the Account is maintained with
respect to contributions, distributions, and such other
matters as the Secretary may require under regulations. The
reports required by this subsection shall be filed at such
time and in such manner and furnished to such persons at such
time and in such manner as may be required by such
regulations.''.
(b) Tax on Excess Contributions.--
(1) Subsection (a) of section 4973 (relating to tax on
excess contributions to certain tax-favored accounts and
annuities) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
paragraph (3), by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph
(5), and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) a FFARRM Account (within the meaning of section
468C(d)), or''.
(2) Section 4973 is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(g) Excess Contributions to FFARRM Accounts.--For
purposes of this section, in the case of a FFARRM Account
(within the meaning of section 468C(d)), the term `excess
contributions' means the amount by which the amount
contributed for the taxable year to the Account exceeds the
amount which may be contributed to the Account under section
468C(b) for such taxable year. For purposes of this
subsection, any contribution which is distributed out of the
FFARRM Account in a distribution to which section
468C(e)(2)(B) applies shall be treated as an amount not
contributed.''.
(3) The section heading for section 4973 is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 4973. EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN ACCOUNTS,
ANNUITIES, ETC.''.
(4) The table of sections for chapter 43 is amended by
striking the item relating to section 4973 and inserting the
following new item:
``Sec. 4973. Excess contributions to certain accounts, annuities,
etc.''.
(c) Tax on Prohibited Transactions.--
(1) Subsection (c) of section 4975 (relating to tax on
prohibited transactions) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(6) Special rule for ffarrm accounts.--A person for whose
benefit a FFARRM Account (within the meaning of section
468C(d)) is established shall be exempt from the tax imposed
by this section with respect to any transaction concerning
such account (which would otherwise be taxable under this
section) if, with respect to such transaction, the account
ceases to be a FFARRM Account by reason of the application of
section 468C(f )(3)(A) to such account.''.
(2) Paragraph (1) of section 4975(e) is amended by
redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as subparagraphs (F)
and (G), respectively, and by inserting after subparagraph
(D) the following new subparagraph:
``(E) a FFARRM Account described in section 468C(d),''.
(d) Failure To Provide Reports on FFARRM Accounts.--
Paragraph (2) of section 6693(a) (relating to failure to
provide reports on certain tax-favored accounts or annuities)
is amended by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively, and by inserting
after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
``(C) section 468C(g) (relating to FFARRM Accounts),''.
(e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
C of part II of subchapter E of chapter 1 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 468B the
following new item:
[[Page 24432]]
``Sec. 468C. Farm, Fishing and Ranch Risk Management Accounts.''.
(f ) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 715. EXTENSION OF ENHANCED DEDUCTION FOR CORPORATE
DONATIONS OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Expansion of Computer Technology Donations to Public
Libraries.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (6) of section 170(e) (relating
to special rule for contributions of computer technology and
equipment for elementary or secondary school purposes) is
amended by striking ``qualified elementary or secondary
educational contribution'' each place it occurs in the
headings and text and inserting ``qualified computer
contribution''.
(2) Expansion of eligible donees.--Clause (i) of section
170(e)(6)(B) (relating to qualified elementary or secondary
educational contribution) is amended by striking ``or'' at
the end of subclause (I), by adding ``or'' at the end of
subclause (II), and by inserting after subclause (II) the
following new subclause:
``(III) a public library (within the meaning of section
213(2)(A) of the Library Services and Technology Act (20
U.S.C. 9122(2)(A)), as in effect on the date of the enactment
of the Community Renewal and New Markets Act of 2000,
established and maintained by an entity described in
subsection (c)(1),''.
(3) Extension of donation period.--Clause (ii) of section
170(e)(6)(B) is amended by striking ``2 years'' and inserting
``3 years''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 170(e)(6)(B)(iv) is amended by striking ``in
any grades of the K-12''.
(2) The heading of paragraph (6) of section 170(e) is
amended by striking ``elementary or secondary school
purposes'' and inserting ``educational purposes''.
(c) Extension of Deduction.--Section 170(e)(6)(F) (relating
to termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2000''
and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 716. RELIEF FROM FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY ARISING WITH
RESPECT TO CERTAIN CLAIMS AGAINST THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR DISCRIMINATION IN
FARM CREDIT AND BENEFIT PROGRAMS.
Notwithstanding any provision of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, in the case of a person who is certified to be a
member of the plaintiff class in the settlement of the
consolidated actions entitled ``Pigford, et al. v.
Glickman'', No. 97-1978 (D.D.C.) (PLF), and ``Brewington et
al. v. Glickman'', No. 98-1693 (D.D.C.) (PLF), gross income
for purposes of subtitle A of such Code shall not include--
(1) any cash payment received before, on, or after the date
of the enactment of this Act by, or made on behalf of, a
person under such settlement, and
(2) any amount which (but for this section) would be
includible in gross income by reason of the discharge of
indebtedness pursuant to such settlement.
SEC. 717. EXPANSION OF CREDIT FOR ADOPTION EXPENSES.
(a) Increase in Expenses Allowable for Adoption.--Paragraph
(1) of section 23(b) (relating to dollar limitation) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) Dollar limitation.--
``(A) In general.--The aggregate amount of qualified
adoption expenses which may be taken into account under
subsection (a) for all taxable years with respect to the
adoption of a child by the taxpayer shall not exceed the
applicable amount.
``(B) Applicable amount.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)--
``(i) Child with special needs.--In the case of a child
with special needs, the applicable amount for a taxable year
shall be the amount determined in accordance with the
following table:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in: amount is:
2001..................................................$8,000 .
2002.................................................$10,000 .
2003 and thereafter..................................$12,000..
``(ii) Other children.--In the case of a child who is not a
child with special needs, the applicable amount for a taxable
year shall be the amount determined in accordance with the
following table:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in: amount is:
2001......................................................$6,000
2002......................................................$7,000
2003......................................................$8,000
2004......................................................$9,000
2005 and thereafter...................................$10,000.''.
(b) Increase in Income Limitation.--Clause (i) of section
23(b)(2)(A) (relating to income limitation) is amended by
striking ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''.
(c) Extension of Sunset.--Subparagraph (B) of section
23(d)(2) (relating to eligible child) is amended by striking
``2001'' and inserting ``2005''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 718. STUDY CONCERNING UNITED STATES INSURANCE COMPANIES
WITH CERTAIN OFFSHORE REINSURANCE AFFILIATES.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall conduct a
study on the extent to which United States tax on investment
income of United States insurance companies is being avoided
through the use of affiliated corporations in Bermuda or
other offshore locations. In conducting such study, the
Secretary shall--
(1) address issues concerning the application of current
United States tax law in preventing such avoidance,
(2) examine changes to United States tax law which may be
needed to prevent such avoidance, and
(3) make such recommendations as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(b) Submission of Study to Congress.--Not later than
December 31, 2001, the Secretary shall submit the study
conducted under subsection (a), together with recommendations
thereon, to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate.
SEC. 719. TREATMENT OF INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS UNDER
FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT TAX ACT.
(a) In General.--Section 3306(c)(7) (defining employment)
is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or in the employ of an Indian tribe,''
after ``service performed in the employ of a State, or any
political subdivision thereof,''; and
(2) by inserting ``or Indian tribes'' after ``wholly owned
by one or more States or political subdivisions''.
(b) Payments in Lieu of Contributions.--Section 3309
(relating to State law coverage of services performed for
nonprofit organizations or governmental entities) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2) by inserting ``, including an
Indian tribe,'' after ``the State law shall provide that a
governmental entity'';
(2) in subsection (b)(3)(B) by inserting ``, or of an
Indian tribe'' after ``of a State or political subdivision
thereof'';
(3) in subsection (b)(3)(E) by inserting ``or tribal''
after ``the State''; and
(4) in subsection (b)(5) by inserting ``or of an Indian
tribe'' after ``an agency of a State or political subdivision
thereof''.
(c) State Law Coverage.--Section 3309 (relating to State
law coverage of services performed for nonprofit
organizations or governmental entities) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Election by Indian Tribe.--The State law shall
provide that an Indian tribe may make contributions for
employment as if the employment is within the meaning of
section 3306 or make payments in lieu of contributions under
this section, and shall provide that an Indian tribe may make
separate elections for itself and each subdivision,
subsidiary, or business enterprise wholly owned by such
Indian tribe. State law may require a tribe to post a payment
bond or take other reasonable measures to assure the making
of payments in lieu of contributions under this section.
Notwithstanding the requirements of section 3306(a)(6), if,
within 90 days of having received a notice of delinquency, a
tribe fails to make contributions, payments in lieu of
contributions, or payment of penalties or interest (at
amounts or rates comparable to those applied to all other
employers covered under the State law) assessed with respect
to such failure, or if the tribe fails to post a required
payment bond, then service for the tribe shall not be
excepted from employment under section 3306(c)(7) until any
such failure is corrected. This subsection shall apply to an
Indian tribe within the meaning of section 4(e) of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 3306 (relating to definitions) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(u) Indian Tribe.--For purposes of this chapter, the term
`Indian tribe' has the meaning given to such term by section
4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)), and includes any
subdivision, subsidiary, or business enterprise wholly owned
by such an Indian tribe.''.
(e) Effective Date; Transition Rule.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to service performed on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Transition rule.--For purposes of the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act, service performed in the employ of an
Indian tribe (as defined in section 3306(u) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section)) shall not be
treated as employment (within the meaning of section 3306 of
such Code) if--
(A) it is service which is performed before the date of the
enactment of this Act and with respect to which the tax
imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act has not been
paid, and
(B) such Indian tribe reimburses a State unemployment fund
for unemployment benefits paid for service attributable to
such tribe for such period.
Subtitle C--Technical Corrections
SEC. 721. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO TICKET TO WORK AND WORK
INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999.
(a) Amendments Related to Section 502 of the Act.--
(1) Section 280C(c)(1) is amended by striking ``or credit''
after ``deduction'' each place it appears.
(2) Section 30A is amended by redesignating subsections (f)
and (g) as subsections (g) and (h), respectively, and by
inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsection:
``(f) Denial of Double Benefit.--Any wages or other
expenses taken into account in determining the credit under
this section may not be taken into account in determining the
credit under section 41.''
[[Page 24433]]
(b) Amendment Related to Section 545 of the Act.--Clause
(ii) of section 857(b)(7)(B) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) Exception for certain amounts.--Clause (i) shall not
apply to amounts received directly or indirectly by a real
estate investment trust--
``(I) for services furnished or rendered by a taxable REIT
subsidiary that are described in paragraph (1)(B) of section
856(d), or
``(II) from a taxable REIT subsidiary that are described in
paragraph (7)(C)(ii) of such section.''
(c) Clarification Related to Section 538 of the Act.--The
reference to section 332(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 in Treasury Regulation section 1.1502-34 shall be
deemed to include a reference to section 732(f) of such Code.
(d) Effective Date.--Subsection (c) and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect as if included in the
provisions of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999 to which they relate.
SEC. 722. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO TAX AND TRADE RELIEF
EXTENSION ACT OF 1998.
(a) Amendment Related to Section 1004(b) of the Act.--
Subsection (d) of section 6104 is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Application to nonexempt charitable trusts and
nonexempt private foundations.--The organizations referred to
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 6033(d) shall comply
with the requirements of this subsection relating to annual
returns filed under section 6033 in the same manner as the
organizations referred to in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Amendment Related to Section 4003 of the Act.--
Subsection (b) of section 4003 of the Tax and Trade Relief
Extension Act of 1998 is amended by inserting
``(7)(A)(i)(II),'' after ``(5)(A)(ii)(I),''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the Tax
and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998 to which they relate.
SEC. 723. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
RESTRUCTURING AND REFORM ACT OF 1998.
(a) Amendments Related to Innocent Spouse Relief.--
(1) Election may be made any time after deficiency
asserted.--Subparagraph (B) of section 6015(c)(3) is amended
by striking ``shall be made'' and inserting ``may be made at
any time after a deficiency for such year is asserted but''.
(2) Clarification regarding disallowance of refunds and
credits under section 6015(c).--
(A) In general.--Section 6015 is amended by redesignating
subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by inserting after
subsection (f) the following new subsection:
``(g) Credits and Refunds.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), notwithstanding any other law or rule of law (other than
section 6511, 6512(b), 7121, or 7122), credit or refund shall
be allowed or made to the extent attributable to the
application of this section.
``(2) Res judicata.--In the case of any election under
subsection (b) or (c), if a decision of a court in any prior
proceeding for the same taxable year has become final, such
decision shall be conclusive except with respect to the
qualification of the individual for relief which was not an
issue in such proceeding. The exception contained in the
preceding sentence shall not apply if the court determines
that the individual participated meaningfully in such prior
proceeding.
``(3) Credit and refund not allowed under subsection (c).--
No credit or refund shall be allowed as a result of an
election under subsection (c).''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (3) of section 6015(e)
is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Limitation on tax court jurisdiction.--If a suit for
refund is begun by either individual filing the joint return
pursuant to section 6532--
``(A) the Tax Court shall lose jurisdiction of the
individual's action under this section to whatever extent
jurisdiction is acquired by the district court or the United
States Court of Federal Claims over the taxable years that
are the subject of the suit for refund, and
``(B) the court acquiring jurisdiction shall have
jurisdiction over the petition filed under this
subsection.''.
(3) Clarifications regarding review by tax court.--
(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6015(e) is amended in the
matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting after
``individual'' the following: ``against whom a deficiency has
been asserted and''.
(B) Subparagraph (A) of section 6015(e)(1) is amended to
read as follows:
``(A) In general.--In addition to any other remedy provided
by law, the individual may petition the Tax Court (and the
Tax Court shall have jurisdiction) to determine the
appropriate relief available to the individual under this
section if such petition is filed--
``(i) at any time after the earlier of--
``(I) the date the Secretary mails, by certified or
registered mail to the taxpayer's last known address, notice
of the Secretary's final determination of relief available to
the individual, or
``(II) the date which is 6 months after the date such
election is filed with the Secretary, and
``(ii) not later than the close of the 90th day after the
date described in clause (i)(I).''.
(C) Subparagraph (B)(i) of section 6015(e)(1) is amended--
(i) by striking ``until the expiration of the 90-day period
described in subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``until the
close of the 90th day referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii)'',
and
(ii) by inserting ``under subparagraph (A)'' after ``filed
with the Tax Court''.
(D)(i) Subsection (e) of section 6015 is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Waiver.--An individual who elects the application of
subsection (b) or (c) (and who agrees with the Secretary's
determination of relief) may waive in writing at any time the
restrictions in paragraph (1)(B) with respect to collection
of the outstanding assessment (whether or not a notice of the
Secretary's final determination of relief has been
mailed).''.
(ii) Paragraph (2) of section 6015(e) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Suspension of running of period of limitations.--The
running of the period of limitations in section 6502 on the
collection of the assessment to which the petition under
paragraph (1)(A) relates shall be suspended--
``(A) for the period during which the Secretary is
prohibited by paragraph (1)(B) from collecting by levy or a
proceeding in court and for 60 days thereafter, and
``(B) if a waiver under paragraph (5) is made, from the
date the claim for relief was filed until 60 days after the
waiver is filed with the Secretary.''.
(b) Amendments Related to Procedure and Administration.--
(1) Disputes involving $50,000 or less.--Section 7463 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Additional Cases in Which Proceedings May Be
Conducted Under This Section.--At the option of the taxpayer
concurred in by the Tax Court or a division thereof before
the hearing of the case, proceedings may be conducted under
this section (in the same manner as a case described in
subsection (a)) in the case of--
``(1) a petition to the Tax Court under section 6015(e) in
which the amount of relief sought does not exceed $50,000,
and
``(2) an appeal under section 6330(d)(1)(A) to the Tax
Court of a determination in which the unpaid tax does not
exceed $50,000.''.
(2) Authority to enjoin collection actions.--
(A) Section 6330(e)(1) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Notwithstanding the provisions of section
7421(a), the beginning of a levy or proceeding during the
time the suspension under this paragraph is in force may be
enjoined by a proceeding in the proper court, including the
Tax Court. The Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction under
this paragraph to enjoin any action or proceeding unless a
timely appeal has been filed under subsection (d)(1) and then
only in respect of the unpaid tax or proposed levy to which
the determination being appealed relates.''.
(B) Section 7421(a) is amended by inserting ``6330(e)(1),''
after ``6246(b),''.
(3) Clarification.--Paragraph (3) of section 6331(k) is
amended by striking ``(3), (4), and (5)'' and inserting ``(3)
and (4)''.
(c) Amendment Related to Section 1103 of the Act.--
Paragraph (6) of section 6103(k) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and an officer or employee of the Office
of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration'' after
``internal revenue officer or employee'', and
(2) by striking ``internal revenue'' in the heading and
inserting ``certain''.
(d) Amendment Related to Section 3401 of the Act.--Section
6330(d)(1)(A) is amended by striking ``to hear'' and
inserting ``with respect to''.
(e) Amendment Related to Section 3509 of the Act.--
Subparagraph (A) of section 6110(g)(5) is amended by
inserting ``, any Chief Counsel advice,'' after ``technical
advice memorandum''.
(f) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by subsections
(a) and (b) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act. The amendments made by subsections (c), (d), and
(e) shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
to which they relate.
SEC. 724. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 1997.
(a) Amendment Related to Section 101 of the Act.--Paragraph
(4) of section 6211(b) is amended by striking ``sections 32
and 34'' and inserting ``sections 24(d), 32, and 34''.
(b) Amendment Related to Section 302 of the Act.--The last
sentence of section 3405(e)(1)(B) is amended by inserting
``(other than a Roth IRA)'' after ``individual retirement
plan''.
(c) Amendment to Section 311 of the Act.--Paragraph (3) of
section 311(e) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (relating
to election to recognize gain on assets held on January 1,
2001) is amended by adding at the end the following new
sentence: ``Such an election shall not apply to any asset
which is disposed of (in a transaction in which gain or loss
is recognized in whole or in part) before the close of the 1-
year period beginning on the date that the asset would have
been treated as sold under such election.''
(d) Amendment Related to Section 402 of the Act.--The flush
sentence at the end of clause (ii) of section 56(a)(1)(A) is
amended by
[[Page 24434]]
inserting before ``or to any other property'' the following:
``(and the straight line method shall be used for such 1250
property)''.
(e) Amendments Related to Section 1072 of the Act.--
(1) Clause (ii) of section 415(c)(3)(D) and subparagraph
(B) of section 403(b)(3) are each amended by striking
``section 125 or'' and inserting ``section 125, 132(f)(4),
or''.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 414(s) is amended by striking
``section 125, 402(e)(3)'' and inserting ``section 125,
132(f)(4), 402(e)(3)''.
(f) Amendment Related to Section 1454 of the Act.--
Subsection (a) of section 7436 is amended by inserting before
the period at the end of the first sentence ``and the proper
amount of employment tax under such determination''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the
Taxpayer Relief of 1997 to which they relate.
SEC. 725. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997.
(a) Amendments Related to Section 9302 of the Act.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 9302(j) of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 is amended by striking ``tobacco products and
cigarette papers and tubes'' and inserting ``cigarettes''.
(2)(A) Subsection (h) of section 5702 is amended to read as
follows:
``(h) Manufacturer of Cigarette Papers and Tubes.--
`Manufacturer of cigarette papers and tubes' means any person
who manufactures cigarette paper, or makes up cigarette paper
into tubes, except for his own personal use or consumption.''
(B) Section 5702, as amended by subparagraph (A), is
amended by striking subsection (f) and by redesignating
subsections (g) through (p) as subsections (f) through (o),
respectively.
(3) Subsection (c) of section 5761 is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``This subsection and section 5754
shall not apply to any person who relands or receives tobacco
products in the quantity allowed entry free of tax and duty
under chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States, and such person may voluntarily relinquish to
the Secretary at the time of entry any excess of such
quantity without incurring the penalty under this subsection.
No quantity of tobacco products other than the quantity
referred to in the preceding sentence may be relanded or
received as a personal use quantity.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in section 9302 of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
SEC. 726. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SMALL BUSINESS JOB PROTECTION
ACT OF 1996.
(a) Amendment Related to Section 1201 of the Act.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 51(d)(2) is amended--
(1) by striking ``plan approved'' and inserting ``program
funded'', and
(2) by striking ``(relating to assistance for needy
families with minor children)''.
(b) Amendment Related to Section 1302 of the Act.--Clause
(i) of section 1361(e)(1)(A) is amended by striking ``or''
before ``(III)'' and by adding at the end the following: ``or
(IV) an organization described in section 170(c)(1) which
holds a contingent interest in such trust and is not a
potential current beneficiary,''.
(c) Amendment Related to Section 1401 of the Act.--Clause
(ii) of section 401(k)(10)(B) is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``Such term includes a
distribution of an annuity contract from--
``(I) a trust which forms a part of a plan described in
section 401(a) and which is exempt from tax under section
501(a), or
``(II) an annuity plan described in section 403(a).''.
(d) Amendment Related to Section 1427 of the Act.--Clause
(ii) of section 219(c)(1)(B) is amended by striking ``and''
at the end of subclause (I), by redesignating subclause (II)
as subclause (III), and by inserting after subclause (I) the
following new subclause:
``(II) the amount of any designated nondeductible
contribution (as defined in section 408(o)) on behalf of such
spouse for such taxable year, and''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the provisions of the
Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 to which they
relate.
SEC. 727. AMENDMENT RELATED TO REVENUE RECONCILIATION ACT OF
1990.
(a) Amendment Related to Section 11511 of the Act.--
Subparagraph (C) of section 43(c)(1) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(as defined in section 193(b))'' after
``expenses'', and
(2) by striking ``under section 193''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect as if included in section 11511 of the
Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990.
SEC. 728. OTHER TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
(a) Modified Endowment Contracts.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 7702A(a) is amended by
inserting ``or this paragraph'' before the period.
(2) Clause (ii) of section 7702A(c)(3)(A) is amended by
striking ``under the contract'' and inserting ``under the old
contract''.
(3) The amendments made by this subsection shall take
effect as if included in the amendments made by section 5012
of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988.
(b) Affiliated Corporations in Context of Worthless
Securities.--
(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 165(g)(3) is amended to
read as follows:
``(A) the taxpayer owns directly stock in such corporation
meeting the requirements of section 1504(a)(2), and''.
(2) Paragraph (3) of section 165(g) is amended by striking
the last sentence.
(3) The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to
taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984.
(c) Certain Annuities Issued by Tax-Exempt Organizations
Not Treated as Debt Instruments under Original Issue Discount
Rules.--
(1) Clause (ii) of section 1275(a)(1)(B) is amended by
striking ``subchapter L'' and inserting ``subchapter L (or by
an entity described in section 501(c) and exempt from tax
under section 501(a) which would be subject to tax under
subchapter L were it not so exempt)''.
(2) The amendment made by this subsection shall take effect
as if included in the amendments made by section 41 of the
Tax Reform Act of 1984.
(d) Tentative Carryback Adjustments of Losses From Section
1256 Contracts.--
(1) Subsection (a) of section 6411 is amended by striking
``section 1212(a)(1)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(1) or
(c) of section 1212''.
(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect
as if included in the amendments made by section 504 of the
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.
(e) Correction of Calculation of Amounts to be Deposited in
Highway Trust Fund.--
(1) Subsection (b) of section 9503 is amended by striking
paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph
(5).
(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply with
respect to taxes received in the Treasury after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(f) Expenditures From Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust
Fund.--Section 9510(c)(1)(A) is amended by striking
``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``October 18, 2000''.
SEC. 729. CLERICAL CHANGES.
(1) Clause (i) of section 45(d)(7)(A) is amended by
striking ``paragraph (3)(A)'' and inserting ``subsection
(c)(3)(A)''.
(2) Subsection (f) of section 67 is amended by striking
``the last sentence'' and inserting ``the second sentence''.
(3) The heading for paragraph (5) of section 408(d) is
amended to read as follows:
``(5) Distributions of excess contributions after due date
for taxable year and certain excess rollover contributions.--
''.
(4) Paragraph (3) of section 475(g) is amended by striking
``267(b) of'' and inserting ``267(b) or''.
(5) The heading for subparagraph (B) of section 529(e)(3)
is amended by striking ``under guaranteed plans''.
(6) Clause (iii) of section 530(d)(4)(B) is amended by
striking ``; or'' at the end and inserting ``, or''.
(7) Paragraphs (1)(C) and (2)(C) of section 664(d) are each
amended by striking the period after ``subsection (g))''.
(8)(A) Subsection (e) of section 678 is amended by striking
``an electing small business corporation'' and inserting ``an
S corporation''.
(B) Clause (v) of section 6103(e)(1)(D) is amended to read
as follows:
``(v) if the corporation was an S corporation, any person
who was a shareholder during any part of the period covered
by such return during which an election under section 1362(a)
was in effect, or''.
(9) Paragraph (7) of section 856(c) is amended by striking
``paragraph (4)(B)(ii)(III)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(4)(B)(iii)(III)''
(10) Subparagraph (A) of section 856(l)(4) is amended by
striking ``paragraph (9)(D)(ii)'' and inserting ``subsection
(d)(9)(D)(ii)''.
(11) Subparagraph (B) of section 871(f)(2) is amended by
striking ``19 U.S.C.'' and inserting ``(19 U.S.C.''.
(12) Subparagraph (B) of section 995(b)(3) is amended by
striking ``the Military Security Act of 1954 (22 U.S.C.
1934)'' and inserting ``section 38 of the International
Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (22
U.S.C. 2778)''.
(13) Section 1391(g)(3)(C) is amended by striking
``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
(14)(A) Paragraph (2) of section 2035(c) is amended by
striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''.
(B) Subsection (d) of section 2035 is amended by inserting
``and paragraph (1) of subsection (c)'' after ``Subsection
(a)''.
(15) Paragraph (5) of section 3121(a) is amended by
striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (G) and
inserting a comma.
(16) Subparagraph (B) of section 4946(c)(3) is amended by
striking ``the lowest rate of compensation prescribed for GS-
16 of the General Schedule under section 5332'' and inserting
``the lowest rate of basic pay for the Senior Executive
Service under section 5382''.
(17) Subsection (p) of section 6103 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (4), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A)--
(i) by striking the second comma after ``(13)'', and
(ii) by striking ``(7)'' and all that follows through
``shall, as a condition'' and inserting ``(7), (8), (9),
(12), (15), or (16) or any other person described in
subsection (l)(16) shall, as a condition'', and
(B) in paragraph (4)(F)(ii), by striking the second comma
after ``(14)''.
[[Page 24435]]
(18) Paragraph (5) of section 6166(k) is amended by
striking ``2035(d)(4)'' and inserting ``2035(c)(2)''.
(19) Subsection (a) of section 6512 is amended by striking
``; and'' at the end of paragraphs (1), (2), and (5) and
inserting ``, and''.
(20) Paragraph (1) of section 6611(g) is amended by
striking the comma after ``(b)(3)''.
(21) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 6655(e)(5) are
amended by striking ``subsections (d)(5) and (l)(3)(B)'' and
inserting ``subsection (d)(5)''.
(22) The subchapter heading for subchapter D of chapter 67
is amended by capitalizing the first letter of the second
word.
(23)(A) Section 6724(d)(1)(B) is amended by striking
clauses (xiv) through (xvii) and inserting the following:
``(xiv) subparagraph (A) or (C) of subsection (c)(4) of
section 4093 (relating to information reporting with respect
to tax on diesel and aviation fuels),
``(xv) section 4101(d) (relating to information reporting
with respect to fuels taxes),
``(xvi) subparagraph (C) of section 338(h)(10) (relating to
information required to be furnished to the Secretary in case
of elective recognition of gain or loss), or
``(xvii) section 264(f)(5)(A)(iv) (relating to reporting
with respect to certain life insurance and annuity
contracts), and''.
(B) Section 6010(o)(4)(C) of the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 is amended by striking
``inserting `or', and by adding at the end'' and inserting
``inserting `, or', and by adding after subparagraph (Z)''.
(24) Subsection (a) of section 7421 is amended by striking
``6672(b)'' and inserting ``6672(c)''.
(25) Paragraph (3) of section 7430(c) is amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Attorneys'' and
inserting ``Attorneys' '', and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``attorneys fees''
each place it appears and inserting ``attorneys' fees''.
(26) Paragraph (2) of section 7603(b) is amended by
striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraphs (A), (B),
(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) and inserting a comma.
(27) Clause (ii) of section 7802(b)(2)(B) is amended by
striking ``; and'' at the end and inserting ``, and''.
(28) Paragraph (3) of section 7811(a) is amended by
striking ``taxpayer assistance order'' and inserting
``Taxpayer Assistance Order''.
(29) Paragraph (1) of section 7811(d) is amended by
striking ``Ombudsman's'' and inserting ``National Taxpayer
Advocate's''.
(30) Paragraph (3) of section 7872(f) is amended by
striking ``foregoing'' and inserting ``forgoing''.
Subtitle D--Pay-Go Adjustment
SEC. 731. AVOIDANCE OF A PAY-GO SEQUESTRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2001.
(a) Pay-Go Adjustments.--(1) In preparing the final
sequestration report required by section 254(f)(3) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for
fiscal year 2001, in addition to the information required by
that section, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall change any balance of direct spending and
receipts legislation for fiscal year 2001 under section 252
of that Act to zero.
(2) Notwithstanding Rule 3 of the Budget Scorekeeping
Guidelines set forth in the joint explanatory statement of
the committee of conference accompanying the conference
report on the bill H.R. 2015 of the 105th Congress (House
Report No. 105-217, filed July 30, 1997), the legislation
enacted in sections 504 and 505 of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001,
section 312 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
2001, and section 1003 of division B of H.R. 4516 (106th
Congress), as enacted, that would have been estimated by the
Office of Management and Budget as changing direct spending
or receipts under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 were it included in an
Act other than an appropriations Act shall be treated as
direct spending or receipts legislation, as appropriate,
under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(b) Exemption of Certain Budgetary Reports from
Termination.--Section 3003(a)(1) of the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note) does
not apply to any report required to be submitted under any of
the following provisions of law:
(1) Sections 1105(a), 1106(a) and (b), and 1109(a) of title
31, United States Code, and any other law relating to the
budget of the United States Government.
(2) The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.).
(3) Sections 202(e)(1) and (3) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 602(e)(1) and (3)).
(4) Section 1014(e) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 685(e)).
Following is explanatory language for H.R. 5542 as
introduced on October 25, 2000. References in the following
to the ``conference agreement'' refer to the text of that
bill.
TITLE I. FSC REPEAL AND EXTRATERRITORIAL INCOME EXCLUSION
Repeal of FSC Provisions and Exclusion for Extraterritorial Income
(Secs. 101-104 of the Bill and Secs. 114, 921-927, and 941-943 of the
Code)
present law
Summary of U.S. income taxation of foreign persons
Income earned by a foreign corporation from its foreign
operations generally is subject to U.S. tax only when such
income is distributed to a U.S. person that holds stock in
such corporation. Accordingly, a U.S. person that conducts
foreign operations through a foreign corporation generally is
subject to U.S. tax on the income from those operations when
the income is repatriated to the United States through a
dividend distribution to the U.S. person.\1\ The income is
reported on the U.S. person's tax return for the year the
distribution is received, and the United States imposes tax
on such income at that time. An indirect foreign tax credit
may reduce the U.S. tax imposed on such income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A variety of anti-deferral regimes impose current U.S.
tax on income earned by a U.S. person through a foreign
corporation. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
(the ``Code'') sets forth the following anti-deferral
regimes: the controlled foreign corporation rules of subpart
F (secs. 951-954), the passive foreign investment company
rules (secs. 1291-1298), the foreign personal holding company
rules (secs. 551-558), the personal holding company rules
(secs. 541-547), the accumulated earnings tax rules (secs.
531-537), and the foreign investment company rules (sec.
1246). Detailed rules for coordination among the anti-
deferral regimes are provided to prevent a U.S. person from
being subject to U.S. tax on the same item of income under
multiple regimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign sales corporations
The income of an eligible foreign sales corporation
(``FSC'') is partially subject to U.S. income tax and
partially exempt from U.S. income tax. In addition, a U.S.
corporation generally is not subject to U.S. income tax on
dividends distributed from the FSC out of certain earnings.
A FSC must be located and managed outside the United
States, and must perform certain economic processes outside
the United States. A FSC is often owned by a U.S. corporation
that produces goods in the United States. The U.S.
corporation either supplies goods to the FSC for resale
abroad or pays the FSC a commission in connection with such
sales. The income of the FSC, a portion of which is exempt
from U.S. income tax under the FSC rules, equals the FSC's
gross markup or gross commission income less the expenses
incurred by the FSC. The gross markup or the gross commission
is determined according to specified pricing rules.
A FSC generally is not subject to U.S. income tax on its
exempt foreign trade income. The exempt foreign trade income
of a FSC is treated as foreign-source income that is not
effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business
within the United States.
Foreign trade income, other than exempt foreign trade
income, generally is treated as U.S.-source income
effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business
conducted through a permanent establishment within the United
States. Thus, a FSC's income, other than exempt foreign trade
income, generally is subject to U.S. tax currently and is
treated as U.S.-source income for purposes of the foreign tax
credit limitation.
Foreign trade income of a FSC is defined as the FSC's gross
income attributable to foreign trading gross receipts.
Foreign trading gross receipts generally are the gross
receipts attributable to the following types of transactions:
the sale of export property; the lease or rental of export
property; services related and subsidiary to such a sale or
lease of export property; engineering and architectural
services for projects outside the United States; and export
management services. Investment income and carrying charges
are excluded from the definition of foreign trading gross
receipts.
The term ``export property'' generally means property (1)
which is manufactured, produced, grown or extracted in the
United States by a person other than a FSC; (2) which is held
primarily for sale, lease, or rental in the ordinary course
of a trade or business for direct use or consumption outside
the United States; and (3) not more than 50 percent of the
fair market value of which is attributable to articles
imported into the United States. The term ``export property''
does not include property leased or rented by a FSC for use
by any member of a controlled group of which the FSC is a
member; patents, copyrights (other than films, tapes,
records, similar reproductions, and other than computer
software, whether or not patented), and other intangibles;
oil or gas (or any primary product thereof); unprocessed
softwood timber; or products the export of which is
prohibited or curtailed. Export property also excludes
property designated by the President as being in short
supply.
If export property is sold to a FSC by a related person (or
a commission is paid by a related person to a FSC with
respect to export property), the income with respect to the
export transaction must be allocated between the FSC and the
related person. The taxable income of the FSC and the taxable
income of the related person are computed based upon a
transfer price determined under section 482 or under one of
two formulas specified in the FSC provisions.
The portion of a FSC's foreign trade income that is treated
as exempt foreign trade
[[Page 24436]]
income depends on the pricing rule used to determine the
income of the FSC. If the amount of income earned by the FSC
is based on section 482 pricing, the exempt foreign trade
income generally is 30 percent of the foreign trade income
the FSC derives from a transaction. If the income earned by
the FSC is determined under one of the two formulas specified
in the FSC provisions, the exempt foreign trade income
generally is 15/23 of the foreign trade income the FSC
derives from the transaction.
A FSC is not required or deemed to make distributions to
its shareholders. Actual distributions are treated as being
made first out of earnings and profits attributable to
foreign trade income, and then out of any other earnings and
profits. A U.S. corporation generally is allowed a 100
percent dividends-received deduction for amounts distributed
from a FSC out of earnings and profits attributable to
foreign trade income. The 100 percent dividends-received
deduction is not allowed for nonexempt foreign trade income
determined under section 482 pricing. Any distribution made
by a FSC out of earnings and profits attributable to foreign
trade income to a foreign shareholder is treated as U.S.-
source income that is effectively connected with a business
conducted through a permanent establishment of the
shareholder within the United States. Thus, the foreign
shareholder is subject to U.S. tax on such a distribution.
House Bill
No provision. However, H.R. 4986, as passed by the House,
repeals the present-law FSC rules and replaces them with an
exclusion for extraterritorial income.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, the Senate Finance Committee
reported favorably an amended version of H.R. 4986 to the
Senate (the ``Senate Finance Committee amendment''). The
Senate has taken no action with respect to the Senate Finance
Committee amendment. The Senate Finance Committee amendment
generally follows H.R. 4986, as passed by the House, with one
amendment to strike a provision providing for a dividends-
received deduction for certain dividends allocable to
qualifying foreign trade income. Like H.R. 4986, the Senate
Finance Committee amendment repeals the present-law FSC rules
and replaces them with an exclusion for extraterritorial
income.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement generally follows H.R. 4986, as
passed by the House, and the Senate Finance Committee
amendment, with some modifications. The conference agreement,
like the Senate Finance Committee amendment, does not include
the provision in the House bill that provides a dividends-
received deduction for certain dividends allocable to
qualifying foreign trade income.
Repeal of the FSC rules
The conference agreement repeals the present-law FSC rules
found in sections 921 through 927 of the Code.
Exclusion of extraterritorial income
The conference agreement provides that gross income for
U.S. tax purposes does not include extraterritorial income.
Because the exclusion of such extraterritorial income is a
means of avoiding double taxation, no foreign tax credit is
allowed for income taxes paid with respect to such excluded
income. Extraterritorial income is eligible for the exclusion
to the extent that it is ``qualifying foreign trade income.''
Because U.S. income tax principles generally deny deductions
for expenses related to exempt income, otherwise deductible
expenses that are allocated to qualifying foreign trade
income generally are disallowed.
The conference agreement applies in the same manner with
respect to both individuals and corporations who are U.S.
taxpayers. In addition, the exclusion from gross income
applies for individual and corporate alternative minimum tax
purposes.
Qualifying foreign trade income
Under the conference agreement, qualifying foreign trade
income is the amount of gross income that, if excluded, would
result in a reduction of taxable income by the greatest of
(1) 1.2 percent of the ``foreign trading gross receipts''
derived by the taxpayer from the transaction,2 (2)
15 percent of the ``foreign trade income'' derived by the
taxpayer from the transaction, or (3) 30 percent of the
``foreign sale and leasing income'' derived by the taxpayer
from the transaction. The amount of qualifying foreign trade
income determined using 1.2 percent of the foreign trading
gross receipts is limited to 200 percent of the qualifying
foreign trade income that would result using 15 percent of
the foreign trade income. Notwithstanding the general rule
that qualifying foreign trade income is based on one of the
three calculations that results in the greatest reduction in
taxable income, a taxpayer may choose instead to use one of
the other two calculations that does not result in the
greatest reduction in taxable income. Although these
calculations are determined by reference to a reduction of
taxable income (a net income concept), qualifying foreign
trade income is an exclusion from gross income. Hence, once a
taxpayer determines the appropriate reduction of taxable
income, that amount must be ``grossed up'' for related
expenses in order to determine the amount of gross income
excluded.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The term ``transaction'' means (1) any sale, exchange, or
other disposition; (2) any lease or rental; and (3) any
furnishing of services.
\3\ For an example of these calculations, see the General
Example, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a taxpayer uses 1.2 percent of foreign trading gross
receipts to determine the amount of qualifying foreign trade
income with respect to a transaction, the taxpayer or any
other related persons will be treated as having no qualifying
foreign trade income with respect to any other transaction
involving the same property.4 For example, assume
that a manufacturer and a distributor of the same product are
related persons. The manufacturer sells the product to the
distributor at an arm's-length price of $80 (generating $30
of profit) and the distributor sells the product to an
unrelated customer outside of the United States for $100
(generating $20 of profit). If the distributor chooses to
calculate its qualifying foreign trade income on the basis of
1.2 percent of foreign trading gross receipts, then the
manufacturer will be considered to have no qualifying foreign
trade income and, thus, would have no excluded income. The
distributor's qualifying foreign trade income would be 1.2
percent of $100, and the manufacturer's qualifying foreign
trade income would be zero. This limitation is intended to
prevent a duplication of exclusions from gross income because
the distributor's $100 of gross receipts includes the $80 of
gross receipts of the manufacturer. Absent this limitation,
$80 of gross receipts would have been double counted for
purposes of the exclusion. If both persons were permitted to
use 1.2 percent of their foreign trading gross receipts in
this example, then the related-person group would have an
exclusion based on $180 of foreign trading gross receipts
notwithstanding that the related- person group really only
generated $100 of gross receipts from the transaction.
However, if the distributor chooses to calculate its
qualifying foreign trade income on the basis of 15 percent of
foreign trade income (15 percent of $20 of profit), then the
manufacturer would also be eligible to calculate its
qualifying foreign trade income in the same manner (15
percent of $30 of profit).5 Thus, in the second
case, each related person may exclude an amount of income
based on their respective profits. The total foreign trade
income of the related-person group is $50. Accordingly,
allowing each person to calculate the exclusion based on
their respective foreign trade income does not result in
duplication of exclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Persons are considered to be related if they are treated
as a single employer under section 52(a) or (b) (determined
without taking into account section 1563(b), thus including
foreign corporations) or section 414(m) or (o).
\5\ The manufacturer also could compute qualifying foreign
trade income based on 30 percent of foreign sale and leasing
income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the conference agreement, a taxpayer may determine
the amount of qualifying foreign trade income either on a
transaction-by-transaction basis or on an aggregate basis for
groups of transactions, so long as the groups are based on
product lines or recognized industry or trade usage. Under
the grouping method, the conferees intend that taxpayers be
given reasonable flexibility to identify product lines or
groups on the basis of recognized industry or trade usage. In
general, provided that the taxpayer's grouping is not
unreasonable, it will not be rejected merely because the
grouped products fall within more than one of the two-digit
Standard Industrial Classification codes.6 The
Secretary of the Treasury is granted authority to prescribe
rules for grouping transactions in determining qualifying
foreign trade income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ By reference to Standard Industrial Classification codes,
the conferees intend to include industries as defined in the
North American Industrial Classification System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualifying foreign trade income must be reduced by illegal
bribes, kickbacks and similar payments, and by a factor for
operations in or related to a country associated in carrying
out an international boycott, or participating or cooperating
with an international boycott.
In addition, the conference agreement directs the Secretary
of the Treasury to prescribe rules for marginal costing in
those cases in which a taxpayer is seeking to establish or
maintain a market for qualifying foreign trade property.
Foreign trading gross receipts
Under the conference agreement, ``foreign trading gross
receipts'' are gross receipts derived from certain activities
in connection with ``qualifying foreign trade property'' with
respect to which certain ``economic processes'' take place
outside of the United States. Specifically, the gross
receipts must be (1) from the sale, exchange, or other
disposition of qualifying foreign trade property; (2) from
the lease or rental of qualifying foreign trade property for
use by the lessee outside of the United States; (3) for
services which are related and subsidiary to the sale,
exchange, disposition, lease, or rental of qualifying foreign
trade property (as described above); (4) for engineering or
architectural services for construction projects
[[Page 24437]]
located outside of the United States; or (5) for the
performance of certain managerial services for unrelated
persons. Gross receipts from the lease or rental of
qualifying foreign trade property include gross receipts from
the license of qualifying foreign trade property. Consistent
with the policy adopted in the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997,7 this includes the license of computer
software for reproduction abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Public Law 105-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign trading gross receipts do not include gross
receipts from a transaction if the qualifying foreign trade
property or services are for ultimate use in the United
States, or for use by the United States (or an
instrumentality thereof) and such use is required by law or
regulation. Foreign trading gross receipts also do not
include gross receipts from a transaction that is
accomplished by a subsidy granted by the government (or any
instrumentality thereof) of the country or possession in
which the property is manufactured.
A taxpayer may elect to treat gross receipts from a
transaction as not foreign trading gross receipts. As a
consequence of such an election, the taxpayer could utilize
any related foreign tax credits in lieu of the exclusion as a
means of avoiding double taxation. It is intended that this
election be accomplished by the taxpayer's treatment of such
items on its tax return for the taxable year. Provided that
the taxpayer's taxable year is still open under the statute
of limitations for making claims for refund under section
6511, a taxpayer can make redeterminations as to whether the
gross receipts from a transaction constitute foreign trading
gross receipts.
Foreign economic processes
Under the conference agreement, gross receipts from a
transaction are foreign trading gross receipts only if
certain economic processes take place outside of the United
States. The foreign economic processes requirement is
satisfied if the taxpayer (or any person acting under a
contract with the taxpayer) participates outside of the
United States in the solicitation (other than advertising),
negotiation, or making of the contract relating to such
transaction and incurs a specified amount of foreign direct
costs attributable to the transaction.8 For this
purpose, foreign direct costs include only those costs
incurred in the following categories of activities: (1)
advertising and sales promotion; (2) the processing of
customer orders and the arranging for delivery; (3)
transportation outside of the United States in connection
with delivery to the customer; (4) the determination and
transmittal of a final invoice or statement of account or the
receipt of payment; and (5) the assumption of credit risk. An
exception from the foreign economic processes requirement is
provided for taxpayers with foreign trading gross receipts
for the year of $5 million or less.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The foreign direct costs attributable to the transaction
generally must exceed 50 percent of the total direct costs
attributable to the transaction, but the requirement also
will be satisfied if, with respect to at least two categories
of direct costs, the foreign direct costs equal or exceed 85
percent of the total direct costs attributable to each
category.
\9\ For this purpose, the receipts of related persons are
aggregated and, in the case of pass- through entities, the
determination of whether the foreign trading gross receipts
exceed $5 million is made both at the entity and at the
partner/shareholder level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foreign economic processes requirement must be
satisfied with respect to each transaction and, if so, any
gross receipts from such transaction could be considered as
foreign trading gross receipts. For example, all of the lease
payments received with respect to a multi- year lease
contract, which contract met the foreign economic processes
requirement at the time it was entered into, would be
considered as foreign trading gross receipts. On the other
hand, a sale of property that was formerly a leased asset,
which was not sold pursuant to the original lease agreement,
generally would be considered a new transaction that must
independently satisfy the foreign economic processes
requirement.
A taxpayer's foreign economic processes requirement is
treated as satisfied with respect to a sales transaction
(solely for the purpose of determining whether gross receipts
are foreign trading gross receipts) if any related person has
satisfied the foreign economic processes requirement in
connection with another sales transaction involving the same
qualifying foreign trade property.
Qualifying foreign trade property
Under the conference agreement, the threshold for
determining if gross receipts will be treated as foreign
trading gross receipts is whether the gross receipts are
derived from a transaction involving ``qualifying foreign
trade property.'' Qualifying foreign trade property is
property manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted
(``manufactured'') within or outside of the United States
that is held primarily for sale, lease, or
rental,10 in the ordinary course of a trade or
business, for direct use, consumption, or disposition outside
of the United States.11 In addition, not more than
50 percent of the fair market value of such property can be
attributable to the sum of (1) the fair market value of
articles manufactured outside of the United States plus (2)
the direct costs of labor performed outside of the United
States.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In addition, consistent with the policy adopted in the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, computer software licensed for
reproduction is considered as property held primarily for
sale, lease, or rental.
\11\ ``United States'' includes Puerto Rico for these
purposes because Puerto Rico is included in the customs
territory of the United States.
\12\ For this purpose, the fair market value of any article
imported into the United States is its appraised value as
determined under the Tariff Act of 1930. In addition, direct
labor costs are determined under the principles of section
263A and do not include costs that would be treated as direct
labor costs attributable to ``articles,'' again applying
principles of section 263A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conferees understand that under current industry
practice, the purchaser of an aircraft contracts separately
for the aircraft engine and the airframe, albeit contracting
with the airframe manufacturer to attach the separately
purchased engine. The conferees intend that an aircraft
engine be qualifying foreign trade property (assuming that
all other requirements are satisfied) if (1) it is
specifically designed to be separated from the airframe to
which it is attached without significant damage to either the
engine or the airframe, (2) it is reasonably expected to be
separated from the airframe in the ordinary course of
business (other than by reason of temporary separation for
servicing, maintenance, or repair) before the end of the
useful life of either the engine or the airframe, whichever
is shorter, and (3) the terms under which the aircraft engine
was sold were directly and separately negotiated between the
manufacturer of the aircraft engine and the person to whom
the aircraft will be ultimately delivered. By articulating
this application of the foreign destination test in the case
of certain separable aircraft engines, the conferees intend
no inference with respect to the application of any
destination test under present law or with respect to any
other rule of law outside the conference agreement.
13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., sections 927(a)(1)(B) and 993(c)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conference agreement excludes certain property from the
definition of qualifying foreign trade property. The excluded
property is (1) property leased or rented by the taxpayer for
use by a related person, (2) certain
intangibles,14 (3) oil and gas (or any primary
product thereof), (4) unprocessed softwood timber, (5)
certain products the transfer of which are prohibited or
curtailed to effectuate the policy set forth in Public Law
96-72, and (6) property designated by Executive order as in
short supply. In addition, it is the intention of the
conferees that property that is leased or licensed to a
related person who is the lessor, licensor, or seller of the
same property in a sublease, sublicense, sale, or rental to
an unrelated person for the ultimate and predominate use by
the unrelated person outside of the United States is not
excluded property by reason of such lease or license to a
related person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The intangibles that are treated as excluded property
under the bill are: patents, inventions, models, designs,
formulas, or processes whether or not patented, copyrights
(other than films, tapes, records, or similar reproductions,
and other than computer software (whether or not patented),
for commercial or home use), goodwill, trademarks, trade
brands, franchises, or other like property. Computer software
that is licensed for reproduction outside of the United
States is not excluded from the definition of qualifying
foreign trade property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to property that is manufactured outside of
the United States, rules are provided to ensure consistent
U.S. tax treatment with respect to manufacturers. The
conference agreement requires that property manufactured
outside of the United States be manufactured by (1) a
domestic corporation, (2) an individual who is a citizen or
resident of the United States, (3) a foreign corporation that
elects to be subject to U.S. taxation in the same manner as a
U.S. corporation, or (4) a partnership or other pass-through
entity all of the partners or owners of which are described
in (1), (2), or (3) above.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Except as provided by the Secretary of the Treasury,
tiered partnerships or pass-through entities will be
considered as partnerships or pass-through entities for
purposes of this rule if each of the partnerships or entities
is directly or indirectly wholly-owned by persons described
in (1), (2), or (3) above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign trade income
Under the conference agreement, ``foreign trade income'' is
the taxable income of the taxpayer (determined without regard
to the exclusion of qualifying foreign trade income)
attributable to foreign trading gross receipts. Certain
dividends-paid deductions of cooperatives are disregarded in
determining foreign trade income for this purpose.
Foreign sale and leasing income
Under the conference agreement, ``foreign sale and leasing
income'' is the amount of the taxpayer's foreign trade income
(with respect to a transaction) that is properly allocable to
activities that constitute foreign economic processes (as
described above). For example, a distribution company's
profit from the sale of qualifying foreign trade property
that is associated with sales activities, such as
solicitation or negotiation of the sale, advertising,
processing customer orders and arranging for delivery,
transportation outside of the United States, and
[[Page 24438]]
other enumerated activities, would constitute foreign sale
and leasing income.
Foreign sale and leasing income also includes foreign trade
income derived by the taxpayer in connection with the lease
or rental of qualifying foreign trade property for use by the
lessee outside of the United States. Income from the sale,
exchange, or other disposition of qualifying foreign trade
property that is or was subject to such a lease 16
(i.e., the sale of the residual interest in the leased
property) gives rise to foreign sale and leasing income.
Except as provided in regulations, a special limitation
applies to leased property that (1) is manufactured by the
taxpayer or (2) is acquired by the taxpayer from a related
person for a price that was other than arm's length. In such
cases, foreign sale and leasing income may not exceed the
amount of foreign sale and leasing income that would have
resulted if the taxpayer had acquired the leased property in
a hypothetical arm's-length purchase and then engaged in the
actual sale or lease of such property. For example, if a
manufacturer leases qualifying foreign trade property that it
manufactured, the foreign sale and leasing income derived
from that lease may not exceed the amount of foreign sale and
leasing income that the manufacturer would have earned with
respect to that lease had it purchased the property for an
arm's-length price on the day that the manufacturer entered
into the lease. For purposes of calculating the limit on
foreign sale and leasing income, the manufacturer's basis
and, thus, depreciation would be based on this hypothetical
arm's-length price. This limitation is intended to prevent
foreign sale and leasing income from including profit
associated with manufacturing activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For this purpose, such a lease includes a lease that
gave rise to exempt foreign trade income under the FSC
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of determining foreign sale and leasing
income, only directly allocable expenses are taken into
account in calculating the amount of foreign trade income. In
addition, income properly allocable to certain intangibles is
excluded for this purpose.
General example
The following is an example of the calculation of
qualifying foreign trade income.
XYZ Corporation, a U.S. corporation, manufactures property
that is sold to unrelated customers for use outside of the
United States. XYZ Corporation satisfies the foreign economic
processes requirement through conducting activities such as
solicitation, negotiation, transportation, and other sales-
related activities outside of the United States with respect
to its transactions. During the year, qualifying foreign
trade property was sold for gross proceeds totaling $1,000.
The cost of this qualifying foreign trade property was $600.
XYZ Corporation incurred $275 of costs that are directly
related to the sale and distribution of qualifying foreign
trade property. XYZ Corporation paid $40 of income tax to a
foreign jurisdiction related to the sale and distribution of
the qualifying foreign trade property. XYZ Corporation also
generated gross income of $7,600 (gross receipts of $24,000
and cost of goods sold of $16,400) and direct expenses of
$4,225 that relate to the manufacture and sale of products
other than qualifying foreign trade property. XYZ Corporation
also incurred $500 of overhead expenses. XYZ Corporation's
financial information for the year is summarized as follows:
XYZ Corporation, a U.S. corporation, manufactures property
that is sold to unrelated customers for use outside of the
United States. XYZ Corporation satisfies the foreign economic
processes requirement through conducting activities such as
solicitation, negotiation,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``QFTP'' refers to qualifying foreign trade property.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other
Total property QFTP 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross receipts................... $25,000.00 $24,000.00 $1,000.00
Cost of goods sold............... 17,000.00 16,400.00 600.00
--------------------------------------
Gross income..................... 8,000.00 7,600.00 400.00
Direct expenses.................. 4,500.00 4,225.00 275.00
Overhead expenses................ 500.00
-------------
Net income....................... 3,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustrated below is the computation of the amount of
qualifying foreign trade income that is excluded from XYZ
Corporation's gross income and the amount of related expenses
that are disallowed. In order to calculate qualifying foreign
trade income, the amount of foreign trade income first must
be determined. Foreign trade income is the taxable income
(determined without regard to the exclusion of qualifying
foreign trade income) attributable to foreign trading gross
receipts. In this example, XYZ Corporation's foreign trading
gross receipts equal $1,000. This amount of gross receipts is
reduced by the related cost of goods sold, the related direct
expenses, and a portion of the overhead expenses in order to
arrive at the related taxable income.18 Thus, XYZ
Corporation's foreign trade income equals $100, calculated as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Overhead expenses must be apportioned in a reasonable
manner that does not result in a material distortion of
income. In this example, the apportionment of the $500 of
overhead expenses on the basis of gross income is assumed not
to result in a material distortion of income and is assumed
to be a reasonable method of apportionment. Thus, $25 ($500
of total overhead expenses multiplied by 5 percent, i.e.,
$400 of gross income from the sale of qualifying foreign
trade property divided by $8,000 of total gross income) is
apportioned to qualifying foreign trading gross receipts. The
remaining $475 ($500 of total overhead expenses less the $25
apportioned to qualifying income) is apportioned to XYZ
Corporation's other income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign trading gross receipts................................$1,000.00
Cost of goods sold...............................................600.00
________________
Gross income.....................................................400.00
Direct expenses..................................................275.00
Apportioned overhead expenses.....................................25.00
________________
Foreign trade income.............................................100.00
Foreign sale and leasing income is defined as an amount of
foreign trade income (calculated taking into account only
directly-related expenses) that is properly allocable to
certain specified foreign activities. Assume for purposes of
this example that of the $125 of foreign trade income ($400
of gross income from the sale of qualifying foreign trade
property less only the direct expenses of $275), $35 is
properly allocable to such foreign activities (e.g.,
solicitation, negotiation, advertising, foreign
transportation, and other enumerated sales-like activities)
and, therefore, is considered to be foreign sale and leasing
income.
Qualifying foreign trade income is the amount of gross
income that, if excluded, will result in a reduction of
taxable income equal to the greatest of (1) 30 percent of
foreign sale and leasing income, (2) 1.2 percent of foreign
trading gross receipts, or (3) 15 percent of foreign trade
income. Thus, in order to calculate the amount that is
excluded from gross income, taxable income must be determined
and then ``grossed up'' for allocable expenses in order to
arrive at the appropriate gross income figure. First, for
each method of calculating qualifying foreign trade income,
the reduction in taxable income is determined. Then, the $275
of direct and $25 of overhead expenses, totaling $300,
attributable to foreign trading gross receipts is apportioned
to the reduction in taxable income based on the proportion of
the reduction in taxable income to foreign trade income. This
apportionment is done for each method of calculating
qualifying foreign trade income. The sum of the taxable
income reduction and the apportioned expenses equals the
respective qualifying foreign trade income (i.e., the amount
of gross income excluded) under each method, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2% 15% 30%
FTGR FTI \2\ FS&LI
------------------------------------------------\1\----------------\3\--
Reduction of taxable income:
1.2% of FTGR (1.2% * $1,000)............ 12.00
15% of FTI (15% * $100)................. 15.00
30% of FS&LI (30% * $35)................ 10.50
Gross-up for disallowed expenses:
$300 * ($12/$100)....................... 36.00
$300 * ($15/$100)....................... 45.00
$275 * ($10.50/$100) \4\................ 28.88
---------------------------
Qualifying foreign trade income....... 48.00 60.00 39.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``FTGR'' refers to foreign trading gross receipts.
\2\ ``FTI'' refers to foreign trade income.
\3\ ``FS&LI'' refers to foreign sale and leasing income.
\4\ Because foreign sale and leasing income only takes into account
direct expenses, it is appropriate to take into account only such
expenses for purposes of this calculation.
In the example, the $60 of qualifying foreign trade income
is excluded from XYZ Corporation's gross income (determined
based on 15 percent of foreign trade income).\19\ In
connection with excluding $60 of gross income, certain
expenses that are allocable to this income are not deductible
for U.S. Federal income tax purposes. Thus, $45 ($300 of
related expenses multiplied by 15 percent, i.e., $60 of
qualifying foreign trade income divided by $400 of gross
income from the sale of qualifying foreign trade property) of
expenses are disallowed.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Note that XYZ Corporation could choose to use one of the
other two methods notwithstanding that they would result in a
smaller exclusion.
\20\ The $300 of allocable expenses includes both the $275 of
direct expenses and the $25 of overhead expenses. Thus, the
$45 of disallowed expenses represents the sum of $41.25 of
direct expenses plus $3.75 of overhead expenses. If
qualifying foreign trade income were determined using 30
percent of foreign sale and leasing income, the disallowed
expenses would include only the appropriate portion of the
direct expenses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Excluded/
property QFTP disallowed Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross receipts.............................................. $24,000.00 $1,000.00
Cost of goods sold.......................................... 16,400.00 600.00
--------------------------
[[Page 24439]]
Gross income................................................ 7,600.00 400.00 (60.00) 7,940.00
Direct expenses............................................. 4,225.00 275.00 (41.25) 4,458.75
Overhead expenses........................................... 475.00 25.00 (3.75) 496.25
Taxable income.............................................. 2,985.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XYZ Corporation paid $40 of income tax to a foreign
jurisdiction related to the sale and distribution of the
qualifying foreign trade property. A portion of this $40 of
foreign income tax is treated as paid with respect to the
qualifying foreign trade income and, therefore, is not
creditable for U.S. foreign tax credit purposes. In this
case, $6 of such taxes paid ($40 of foreign taxes multiplied
by 15 percent, i.e., $60 of qualifying foreign trade income
divided by $400 of gross income from the sale of qualifying
foreign trade property) is treated as paid with respect to
the qualifying foreign trade income and, thus, is not
creditable.
The results in this example are the same regardless of
whether XYZ Corporation manufactures the property within the
United States or outside of the United States through a
foreign branch. If XYZ Corporation were an S corporation or
limited liability company, the results also would be the
same, and the exclusion would pass through to the S
corporation owners or limited liability company owners as the
case may be.
Other rules
Foreign-source income limitation
The conference agreement provides a limitation with respect
to the sourcing of taxable income applicable to certain sale
transactions giving rise to foreign trading gross receipts.
This limitation only applies with respect to sale
transactions involving property that is manufactured within
the United States. The special source limitation does not
apply when qualifying foreign trade income is determined
using 30 percent of the foreign sale and leasing income from
the transaction.
This foreign-source income limitation is determined in one
of two ways depending on whether the qualifying foreign trade
income is calculated based on 1.2 percent of foreign trading
gross receipts or on 15 percent of foreign trade income. If
the qualifying foreign trade income is calculated based on
1.2 percent of foreign trading gross receipts, the related
amount of foreign- source income may not exceed the amount of
foreign trade income that (without taking into account this
special foreign-source income limitation) would be treated as
foreign-source income if such foreign trade income were
reduced by 4 percent of the related foreign trading gross
receipts.
For example, assume that foreign trading gross receipts are
$2,000 and foreign trade income is $100. Assume also that the
taxpayer chooses to determine qualifying foreign trade income
based on 1.2 percent of foreign trading gross receipts.
Taxable income after taking into account the exclusion of the
qualifying foreign trade income and the disallowance of
related deductions is $76. Assume that the taxpayer
manufactured its qualifying foreign trade property in the
United States and that title to such property passed outside
of the United States. Absent a special sourcing rule, under
section 863(b) (and the regulations thereunder) the $76 of
taxable income would be sourced as $38 U.S. source and $38
foreign source. Under the special sourcing rule, the amount
of foreign-source income may not exceed the amount of the
foreign trade income that otherwise would be treated as
foreign source if the foreign trade income were reduced by 4
percent of the related foreign trading gross receipts.
Reducing foreign trade income by 4 percent of the foreign
trading gross receipts (4 percent of $2,000, or $80) would
result in $20 ($100 foreign trade income less $80). Applying
section 863(b) to the $20 of reduced foreign trade income
would result in $10 of foreign-source income and $10 of U.S.-
source income. Accordingly, the limitation equals $10. Thus,
although under the general sourcing rule $38 of the $76
taxable income would be treated as foreign source, the
special sourcing rule limits foreign-source income in this
example to $10 (with the remaining $66 being treated as U.S.-
source income).
If the qualifying foreign trade income is calculated based
on 15 percent of foreign trade income, the amount of related
foreign-source income may not exceed 50 percent of the
foreign trade income that (without taking into account this
special foreign-source income limitation) would be treated as
foreign-source income.
For example, assume that foreign trade income is $100 and
the taxpayer chooses to determine its qualifying foreign
trade income based on 15 percent of foreign trade income.
Taxable income after taking into account the exclusion of the
qualifying foreign trade income and the disallowance of
related deductions is $85. Assume that the taxpayer
manufactured its qualifying foreign trade property in the
United States and that title to such property passed outside
of the United States. Absent a special sourcing rule, under
section 863(b) the $85 of taxable income would be sourced as
$42.50 U.S. source and $42.50 foreign source. Under the
special sourcing rule, the amount of foreign-source income
may not exceed 50 percent of the foreign trade income that
otherwise would be treated as foreign source. Applying
section 863(b) to the $100 of foreign trade income would
result in $50 of foreign-source income and $50 of U.S.-source
income. Accordingly, the limitation equals $25, which is 50
percent of the $50 foreign-source income. Thus, although
under the general sourcing rule $42.50 of the $85 taxable
income would be treated as foreign source, the special
sourcing rule limits foreign-source income in this example to
$25 (with the remaining $60 being treated as U.S.-source
income).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The foreign-source income limitation provisions also
apply when source is determined solely in accordance with
section 862 (e.g., a distributor of qualifying foreign trade
property that is manufactured in the United States by an
unrelated person and sold for use outside of the United
States).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment of withholding taxes
The conference agreement generally provides that no foreign
tax credit is allowed for foreign taxes paid or accrued with
respect to qualifying foreign trade income (i.e., excluded
extraterritorial income). In determining whether foreign
taxes are paid or accrued with respect to qualifying foreign
trade income, foreign withholding taxes generally are treated
as not paid or accrued with respect to qualifying foreign
trade income.\22\ Accordingly, the conference agreement's
denial of foreign tax credits would not apply to suchtaxes.
For this purpose, the term ``withholding tax'' refers to any
foreign tax that is imposed on a basis other than residence
and that is otherwise a creditable foreign tax under sections
901 or 903.\23\ It is intended that such taxes would be
similar in nature to the gross-basis taxes described in
sections 871 and 881.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ With respect to the withholding taxes that are paid or
accrued (a prerequisite to the taxes being otherwise
creditable), the provision in the bill treats such taxes as
not being paid or accrued with respect to qualifying foreign
trade income.
\23\ This also would apply to any withholding tax that is
creditable for U.S. foreign tax credit purposes under an
applicable treaty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, however, qualifying foreign trade income is determined
based on 30 percent of foreign sale and leasing income, the
special rule for withholding taxes is not applicable. Thus,
in such cases foreign withholding taxes may be treated as
paid or accrued with respect to qualifying foreign trade
income and, accordingly, are not creditable under the
conference agreement.
Election to be treated as a U.S. corporation
The conference agreement provides that certain foreign
corporations may elect, on an original return, to be treated
as domestic corporations. The election applies to the taxable
year when made and all subsequent taxable years unless
revoked by the taxpayer or terminated for failure to qualify
for the election. Such election is available for a foreign
corporation (1) that manufactures property in the ordinary
course of such corporation's trade or business, or (2) if
substantially all of the gross receipts of such corporation
are foreign trading gross receipts. For this purpose,
``substantially all'' is based on the relevant facts and
circumstances.
In order to be eligible to make this election, the foreign
corporation must waive all benefits granted to such
corporation by the United States pursuant to a treaty.\24\
Absent such a waiver, it would be unclear, for example,
whether the permanent establishment article of a relevant tax
treaty would override the electing corporation's treatment as
a domestic corporation under this provision. A foreign
corporation that elects to be treated as a domestic
corporation is not permitted to make an S corporation
election. The Secretary is granted authority to prescribe
rules to ensure that the electing foreign corporation pays
its U.S. income tax liabilities and to designate one or more
classes of corporations that may not make such an
election.\25\ If such an election is made, for purposes of
section 367 the foreign corporation is treated as
transferring (as of the first day of the first taxable year
to which the election applies) all of its assets to a
domestic corporation in connection with an exchange to which
section 354 applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The waiver of treaty benefits applies to the corporation
itself and not, for example, to employees of or independent
contractors associated with the corporation.
\25\ For example, the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe
rules to prevent ``per se'' corporations under the entity-
classification rules from making such an election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a corporation fails to meet the applicable requirements,
described above, for making the election to be treated as a
domestic corporation for any taxable year beginning after the
year of the election, the election will terminate. In
addition, a taxpayer, at its
[[Page 24440]]
option and at any time, may revoke the election to be treated
as a domestic corporation. In the case of either a
termination or a revocation, the electing foreign corporation
will not be considered as a domestic corporation effective
beginning on the first day of the taxable year following the
year of such termination or revocation. For purposes of
section 367, if the election to be treated as a domestic
corporation is terminated or revoked, such corporation is
treated as a domestic corporation transferring (as of the
first day of the first taxable year to which the election
ceases to apply) all of its property to a foreign corporation
in connection with an exchange to which section 354 applies.
Moreover, once a termination occurs or a revocation is made,
the former electing corporation may not again elect to be
taxed as a domestic corporation under the provisions of the
conference agreement for a period of five tax years beginning
with the first taxable year that begins after the termination
or revocation.
For example, assume a U.S. corporation owns 100 percent of
a foreign corporation. The foreign corporation manufactures
outside of the United States and sells what would be
qualifying foreign trade property were it manufactured by a
person subject to U.S. taxation. Such foreign corporation
could make the election under this provision to be treated as
a domestic corporation. As a result, its earnings no longer
would be deferred from U.S. taxation. However, by electing to
be subject to U.S. taxation, a portion of its income would be
qualifying foreign trade income.\26\ The requirement that the
foreign corporation be treated as a domestic corporation
(and, therefore, subject to U.S. taxation) is intended to
provide parity between U.S. corporations that manufacture
abroad in branch form and U.S. corporations that manufacture
abroad through foreign subsidiaries. The election, however,
is not limited to U.S.-owned foreign corporations. A foreign-
owned foreign corporation that wishes to qualify for the
treatment provided under the conference agreement could avail
itself of such election (unless otherwise precluded from
doing so by Treasury regulations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The sourcing limitation described above would not apply
to this example because the property is manufactured outside
of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shared partnerships
The conference agreement provides rules relating to
allocations of qualifying foreign trade income by certain
shared partnerships. To the extent that such a partnership
(1) maintains a separate account for transactions involving
foreign trading gross receipts with each partner, (2) makes
distributions to each partner based on the amounts in the
separate account, and (3) meets such other requirements as
the Treasury Secretary may prescribe by regulations, such
partnership then would allocate to each partner items of
income, gain, loss, and deduction (including qualifying
foreign trade income) from such transactions on the basis of
the separate accounts. It is intended that with respect to,
and only with respect to, such allocations and distributions
(i.e., allocations and distributions related to transactions
between the partner and the shared partnership generating
foreign trading gross receipts), these rules would apply in
lieu of the otherwise applicable partnership allocation rules
such as those in section 704(b). For this purpose, a
partnership is a foreign or domestic entity that is
considered to be a partnership for U.S. Federal income tax
purposes.
Under the conference agreement, any partner's interest in
the shared partnership is not taken into account in
determining whether such partner is a ``related person'' with
respect to any other partner for purposes of the conference
agreement's provisions. Also, the election to exclude certain
gross receipts from foreign trading gross receipts must be
made separately by each partner with respect to any
transaction for which the shared partnership maintains a
separate account.
Certain assets not taken into account for purposes of
interest expense allocation
The conference agreement also provides that qualifying
foreign trade property that is held for lease or rental, in
the ordinary course of a trade or business, for use by the
lessee outside of the United States is not taken into account
for interest allocation purposes.
Distributions of qualifying foreign trade income by
cooperatives
Agricultural and horticultural producers often market their
products through cooperatives, which are member-owned
corporations formed under Subchapter T of the Code. At the
cooperative level, the conference agreement provides the same
treatment of foreign trading gross receipts derived from
products marketed through cooperatives as it provides for
foreign trading gross receipts of other taxpayers. That is,
the qualifying foreign trade income attributable to those
foreign trading gross receipts is excluded from the gross
income of the cooperative. Absent a special rule, however,
patronage dividends or per-unit retain allocations
attributable to qualifying foreign trade income paid to
members of cooperatives would be taxable in the hands of
those members. The conferees believe that this would
disadvantage agricultural and horticultural producers who
choose to market their products through cooperatives relative
to those individuals who market their products directly or
through pass-through entities such as partnerships, limited
liability companies, or S corporations. Accordingly, the
conference agreement provides that the amount of any
patronage dividends or per-unit retain allocations paid to a
member of an agricultural or horticultural cooperative (to
which Part I of Subchapter T applies), which is allocable to
qualifying foreign trade income of the cooperative, is
treated as qualifying foreign trade income of the member
(and, thus, excludable from such member's gross income). In
order to qualify, such amount must be designated by the
organization as allocable to qualifying foreign trade income
in a written notice mailed to its patrons not later than the
payment period described in section 1382(d). The cooperative
cannot reduce its income (e.g., cannot claim a ``dividends-
paid deduction'') under section 1382 for such amounts.
Gap period before administrative guidance is issued
The conferees recognize that there may be a gap in time
between the enactment of the bill and the issuance of
detailed administrative guidance. It is intended that during
this gap period before administrative guidance is issued,
taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service may apply the
principles of present-law regulations and other
administrative guidance under sections 921 through 927 to
analogous concepts under the conference agreement. Some
examples of the application of the principles of present-law
regulations to the conference agreement are described below.
These limited examples are intended to be merely illustrative
and are not intended to imply any limitation regarding the
application of the principles of other analogous rules or
concepts under present law.
Marginal costing and grouping
Under the conference agreement, the Secretary of the
Treasury is provided authority to prescribe rules for using
marginal costing and for grouping transactions in determining
qualifying foreign trade income. It is intended that similar
principles under present-law regulations apply for these
purposes.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., Treas. Reg. sec. 1.924(d)-1(c)(5) and (e);
Temp. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.925(a)-1T(c)(8); Temp. Treas. Reg.
sec. 1.925(b)-1T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded property
The conference agreement provides that qualifying foreign
trade property does not include property leased or rented by
the taxpayer for use by a related person. It is intended that
similar principles under present-law regulations apply for
this purpose. Thus, excluded property does not apply, for
example, to property leased by the taxpayer to a related
person if the property is held for sublease, or is subleased,
by the related person to an unrelated person and the property
is ultimately used by such unrelated person predominantly
outside of the United States.28 In addition,
consistent with the policy adopted in the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997, computer software that is licensed for reproduction
outside of the United States is not excluded property.
Accordingly, the license of computer software to a related
person for reproduction outside of the United States for
sale, sublicense, lease, or rental to an unrelated person for
use outside of the United States is not treated as excluded
property by reason of the license to the related person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Temp. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.927(a)-1T(f)(2)(i). The
bill also provides that oil or gas or primary products from
oil or gas are excluded from the definition of qualifying
foreign trade property. It is intended that similar
principles under present-law regulations apply for these
purposes. Thus, for this purpose, petrochemicals, medicinal
products, insecticides, and alcohols are not considered
primary products from oil or gas and, thus, are not treated
as excluded property. See Temp. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.927(a)-
1T(g)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign trading gross receipts
Under the conference agreement, foreign trading gross
receipts are gross receipts from, among other things, the
sale, exchange, or other disposition of qualifying foreign
trade property, and from the lease of qualifying foreign
trade property for use by the lessee outside of the United
States. It is intended that the principles of present-law
regulations that define foreign trading gross receipts apply
for this purpose. For example, a sale includes an exchange or
other disposition and a lease includes a rental or sublease
and a license or a sublicense.29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Temp. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.924(a)-1T(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign use requirement
Under the conference agreement, property constitutes
qualifying foreign trade property if, among other things, the
property is held primarily for lease, sale, or rental, in the
ordinary course of business, for direct use, consumption, or
disposition outside of the United States.30 It is
intended that the principles of the present-law regulations
apply for purposes of this foreign use requirement. For
example, for purposes of determining
[[Page 24441]]
whether property is sold for use outside of the United
States, property that is sold to an unrelated person as a
component to be incorporated into a second product which is
produced, manufactured, or assembled outside of the United
States will not be considered to be used in the United States
(even if the second product ultimately is used in the United
States), provided that the fair market value of such seller's
components at the time of delivery to the purchaser
constitutes less than 20 percent of the fair market value of
the second product into which the components are incorporated
(determined at the time of completion of the production,
manufacture, or assembly of the second product).31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Foreign trading gross receipts eligible for exclusion
from the tax base do not include gross receipts from a
transaction if the qualifying foreign trade property is for
ultimate use in the United States.
\31\ See Temp. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.927(a)-1T(d)(4)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, for purposes of the foreign use requirement,
property is considered to be used by a purchaser or lessee
outside of the United States during a taxable year if it is
used predominantly outside of the United States.32
For this purpose, property is considered to be used
predominantly outside of the United States for any period if,
during that period, the property is located outside of the
United States more than 50 percent of the time.33
An aircraft or other property used for transportation
purposes (e.g., railroad rolling stock, a vessel, a motor
vehicle, or a container) is considered to be used outside of
the United States for any period if, for the period, either
the property is located outside of the United States more
than 50 percent of the time or more than 50 percent of the
miles traveled in the use of the property are traveled
outside of the United States.34 An orbiting
satellite is considered to be located outside of the United
States for these purposes.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Temp. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.927(a)-1T(d)(4)(iii), (iv),
and (v).
\33\ See Temp. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.927(a)-1T(d)(4)(vi).
\34\ Id.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign economic processes
Under the conference agreement, gross receipts from a
transaction are foreign trading gross receipts eligible for
exclusion from the tax base only if certain economic
processes take place outside of the United States. The
foreign economic processes requirement compares foreign
direct costs to total direct costs. It is intended that the
principles of the present-law regulations apply during the
gap period for purposes of the foreign economic processes
requirement including the measurement of direct costs. The
conferees recognize that the measurement of foreign direct
costs under the present-law regulations often depend on
activities conducted by the FSC, which is a separate entity.
The conferees are aware that some of these concepts will have
to be modified when new guidance is promulgated as a result
of the conference agreement's elimination of the requirement
for a separate entity.
Effective date
In general
The conference agreement is effective for transactions
entered into after September 30, 2000. In addition, no
corporation may elect to be a FSC after September 30, 2000.
The conference agreement also provides a rule requiring the
termination of a dormant FSC when the FSC has been inactive
for a specified period of time. Under this rule, a FSC that
generates no foreign trade income for any five consecutive
years beginning after December 31, 2001, will cease to be
treated as a FSC.
Transition rules
Winding down existing FSCs and binding contract relief
The conference agreement provides a transition period for
existing FSCs and for binding contractual agreements. The new
rules do not apply to transactions in the ordinary course of
business 36 involving a FSC before January 1,
2002. Furthermore, the new rules do not apply to transactions
in the ordinary course of business after December 31, 2001,
if such transactions are pursuant to a binding contract
between a FSC (or a person related to the FSC on September
30, 2000) and any other person (that is not a related person)
and such contract is in effect on September 30, 2000, and all
times thereafter. For this purpose, binding contracts include
purchase options, renewal options, and replacement options
that are enforceable against a lessor or seller (provided
that the options are a part of a contract that is binding and
in effect on September 30, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The mere entering into of a single transaction, such as
a lease, would not, in and of itself, prevent the transaction
from being in the ordinary course of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old earnings and profits of corporations electing to be
treated as domestic corporations
A transition rule also is provided for certain corporations
electing to be treated as a domestic corporation under the
bill. In the case of a corporation to which this transition
rule applies, the corporation's earnings and profits
accumulated in taxable years ending before October 1, 2000
are not included in the gross income of the shareholder by
reason of the deemed asset transfer for section 367 purposes
that the bill provides. Thus, although the electing
corporation may be treated as transferring all of its assets
to a domestic corporation in a reorganization described in
section 368(a)(1)(F), the earnings and profits amount that
would otherwise be treated as a deemed dividend to the U.S.
shareholder under the regulations under section 367(b) will
not include the earnings and profits accumulated in taxable
years ending before October 1, 2000. This treatment is
similar to the treatment of earnings and profits of a foreign
insurance company that makes the election to be treated as a
domestic corporation under section 953(d), which election was
a model for the election to be treated as a domestic
corporation under the bill. Under section 953(d), earnings
and profits accumulated in taxable years beginning before
January 1, 1988 were not included in the earnings and profits
amount that would be a deemed dividend for section 367(b)
purposes.
Like the pre-1988 earnings and profits of a domesticating
foreign insurance company under section 953(d), the earnings
and profits to which this transition rule applies would
continue to be treated as earnings and profits of a foreign
corporation even after the corporation elects to be treated
as a domestic corporation. Thus, a distribution out of
earnings and profits of an electing corporation accumulated
in taxable years ending before October 1, 2000 would be
treated as a distribution made by a foreign
corporation.37 Rules similar to those applicable
to corporations making the section 953(d) election that
prevent the repatriation of pre-election period earnings and
profits without current U.S. taxation apply for this purpose.
Thus, for example, the earnings and profits accumulated in
taxable years beginning before October 1, 2000 would continue
to be taken into account for section 1248
purposes.38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ It is anticipated that ordering rules similar to those
that have been applied in guidance under section 953(d) would
apply to distributions from the electing corporation. See
Notice 89-79, 1989-2 C.B. 392.
\38\ See the rules of section 953(d)(4)(ii), (iii) and (iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The earnings and profits to which the transition rule
applies are the earnings and profits accumulated by the
electing corporation in taxable years ending before October
1, 2000. The transition rule will not apply to earnings and
profits accumulated before that date that are succeeded to
after that date by the electing corporation in a transaction
to which section 381 applies unless, like the electing
corporation, the distributor or transferor (from whom the
electing corporation acquired the earnings and profits) could
have itself made the election under the bill to be treated as
a domestic corporation and would have been eligible for the
transition relief.
The transition rule for old earnings and profits applies to
two classes of taxpayers. The first class is FSCs in
existence on September 30, 2000 that make an election to be
treated as a domestic corporation because they satisfy the
requirement that substantially all of their gross receipts
are foreign trading gross receipts. To be eligible for the
transition relief, the election must be made not later than
for the FSC's first taxable year beginning after December 31,
2001.
The second class of corporations to which this transition
relief applies is certain controlled foreign corporations (as
defined in section 957). Notwithstanding other requirements
for making the election to be treated as a domestic
corporation provided under the bill's general provisions,
such controlled foreign corporations are eligible under the
transition rule to make the election to be treated as a
domestic corporation and will not have the resulting deemed
asset transfer cause a deemed inclusion of earnings and
profits for earnings and profits accumulated in taxable years
ending before October 1, 2000. To be eligible for the
transition relief, such a controlled foreign corporation must
be in existence on September 30, 2000. The controlled foreign
corporation must be wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by
a domestic corporation.39 The controlled foreign
corporation must never have made an election to be treated as
a FSC and must make the election to be treated as a domestic
corporation not later than for its first taxable year
beginning after December 31, 2001. In addition, the
controlled foreign corporation must satisfy certain tests
with respect to its income and activities. For administrative
convenience, these tests are limited to the three taxable
years preceding the first taxable year for which the election
to be treated as a domestic corporation applies. First,
during that three-year period, all of the controlled foreign
corporation's gross income must be subpart F income. Thus,
the income was subject to full inclusion to the U.S.
shareholder and, accordingly, subject to current U.S.
taxation. Second, during that three-year period, the
controlled foreign corporation must have, in the ordinary
course of its trade or business, entered into transactions in
which
[[Page 24442]]
it regularly sold or paid commissions to a related FSC (which
also was in existence on September 30, 2000).40 If
an electing corporation in this second class ceases to be
(directly or indirectly) wholly owned by the domestic
corporation that owns it on September 30, 2000, the election
to be treated as a domestic corporation is terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The ultimate owner must be an actual domestic
corporation, not a corporation that elects to be treated as a
domestic corporation under the bill. In addition, although
the controlled foreign corporation must be wholly owned for
this purpose, it is intended that the mere nominal ownership
of an insignificant number of shares of insignificant value
(which may, for example, be required by foreign law) by
someone unrelated to the domestic parent would not cause the
controlled foreign corporation to fail to be wholly owned for
these purposes.
\40\ It is intended that, if the controlled foreign
corporation's and related FSC's taxable years are still open
under the statute of limitations for claims for refund under
section 6511, redeterminations with respect to sales or
commissions paid to the FSC are permitted for this purpose.
See Temp. Treas. Reg. sec. 1.925(a)-1T(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on use of the gross receipts method
Similar to the limitation on use of the gross receipts
method under the conference agreement's operative provisions,
the conference agreement provides a rule that limits the use
of the gross receipts method for transactions after the
effective date of the conference agreement if that same
property generated foreign trade income to a FSC using the
gross receipts method. Under the rule, if any person used the
gross receipts method under the FSC regime, neither that
person nor any related person will have qualifying foreign
trade income with respect to any other transaction involving
the same item of property.
Coordination of new regime with prior law
Notwithstanding the transition period, FSCs (or related
persons) may elect to have the rules of the conference
agreement apply in lieu of the rules applicable to FSCs.
Thus, for transactions to which the transition rules apply
(i.e., transactions after September 30, 2000 that occur (1)
before January 1, 2002 or (2) after December 31, 2001
pursuant to a binding contract which is in effect on
September 30, 2000), taxpayers may choose to apply either the
FSC rules or the amendments made by this bill, but not both.
In addition, a taxpayer would not be able to avail itself of
the rules of the conference agreement in addition to the
rules applicable to domestic international sales corporations
because the conference agreement provides that the exclusion
of extraterritorial income will not apply if a taxpayer is a
member of any controlled group of which a domestic
international sales corporation is a member.
TITLE II. SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS
A. Extension of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (sec. 201 of the bill
and sec. 51 of the Code)
Present Law
The work opportunity tax credit (``WOTC'') is available on
an elective basis for employers hiring individuals from one
or more of eight targeted groups. The credit generally is
equal to 25 percent of qualified first-year wages for
employment of at least 120 hours but less than 400 hours and
40 percent of qualified first-year wages for employment of
400 hours or more. Qualified first-year wages consist of
wages attributable to service rendered by a member of a
targeted group during the one-year period beginning with the
day the individual begins work for the employer.
No more than $6,000 of wages during the first year of
employment is permitted to be taken into account with respect
to any individual. Thus, the maximum credit per individual is
$2,400. With respect to qualified summer youth employees, the
maximum credit is 40 percent of up to $3,000 of qualified
first-year wages, for a maximum credit of $1,200. The credit
is only effective for wages paid to, or incurred with respect
to, qualified individuals who begin work for the employer
before January 1, 2002.
The employer's deduction for wages is reduced by the amount
of the credit.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, H.R. 833, as passed by the Senate,
permanently extends the WOTC.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for wages paid
to, or incurred with respect to, qualified individuals who
begin work for the employer on or after July 1, 1999.
Subsequent to Senate passage of H.R. 833, Public Law 106-170
extended the WOTC for 30 months (through December 31, 2001)
and clarified the definition of the first year of employment
for purposes of the WOTC.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement extends the WOTC for 30 months
(through June 30, 2004). It is effective for wages paid to,
or incurred with respect to, qualified individuals who begin
work for the employer on or after January 1, 2002, and before
July 1, 2004.
B. Increase the Maximum Dollar Amount of Reforestation Expenditures
Eligible for Amortization and Credit (sec. 202 of the bill and secs.
48(b) and 194 of the Code)
Present Law
Amortization of reforestation costs (sec. 194)
A taxpayer may elect to amortize up to $10,000 ($5,000 in
the case of a separate return by a married individual) of
qualifying reforestation expenditures incurred during the
taxable year with respect to qualifying timber property.
Amortization is taken over 84 months (seven years) and is
subject to a mandatory half-year convention.41 In
the case of an individual, the amortization deduction is
allowed in determining adjusted gross income (i.e., an
``above-the-line deduction'') rather than as an itemized
deduction. The amount eligible for amortization has not been
increased since the election was added to the Code in
1980.42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Under the half-year convention, all reforestation
expenditures are considered to be incurred on the first day
of the first month of the second half of the taxable year.
Thus, an amortization deduction equal to \6/84\ of the
expenditures for the year is allowed in the first and eighth
years and an amortization deduction equal to \1/7\ (\12/84\)
of such expenditures is allowed in the second through seventh
years.
\42\ Sec. 301(a) of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments
Act of 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualifying reforestation expenditures are the direct costs
a taxpayer incurs in connection with the forestation or
reforestation of a site by planting or seeding, and include
costs for the preparation of the site, the cost of the seed
or seedlings, and the cost of the labor and tools (including
depreciation of long lived assets such as tractors and other
machines) used in the reforestation activity. Qualifying
reforestation expenditures do not include expenditures that
would otherwise be deductible and do not include costs for
which the taxpayer has been reimbursed under a governmental
cost sharing program, unless the amount of the reimbursement
is also included in the taxpayer's gross income.
Qualifying timber property includes any woodlot or other
site that is located in the United States that will contain
trees in significant commercial quantities and that is held
by the taxpayer for the planting, cultivating, caring for,
and cutting of trees for sale or use in the commercial
production of timber products. The regulations require that
the site consist of at least one acre that is devoted to such
activities.43 A taxpayer may hold qualifying
timber property in fee or by lease. Where the property is
held by one person for life with the remainder to another
person, the life tenant is considered the owner of the
property for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Treas. Reg. sec. 1.194-3(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reforestation amortization is subject to recapture as
ordinary income on sale of qualifying timber property within
10 years of the year in which the qualifying reforestation
expenditures were incurred.44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Sec. 1245(b)(7); Treas. Reg. sec. 1.194-1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reforestation tax credit (sec. 48(b))
A tax credit is allowed equal to 10 percent of the
reforestation expenditures incurred during the year that are
properly elected to be amortized. An amount allowed as a
credit is subject to recapture if the qualifying timber
property to which the expenditure relates is disposed of
within five years.
House Bill
No provision, but H.R. 3081 as passed by the House
increases the amount of reforestation expenditures eligible
for seven-year amortization and the reforestation credit from
$10,000 to $25,000 per taxable year (from $5,000 to $12,500
in the case of a separate return by a married individual).
For taxable years beginning in 2001 through 2003, H.R. 3081
removes the limitation on the amount of expenditures eligible
for seven-year amortization.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for
expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2000. For taxable years beginning in 2001,
2002, and 2003, the amount of reforestation expenditures
eligible for the credit is limited to $25,000 and no limit
applies to the amount of expenditures eligible for seven-year
amortization. For taxable years beginning after 2003, the
amount of reforestation expenditures eligible for seven-year
amortization and for the credit is limited to $25,000.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement includes the provision in H.R.
3081.
C. Capital Gains Treatment Under Section 631(b) to Apply to Outright
Sales of Timber (sec. 202(c) of the bill and sec. 631(b) of the Code)
Present Law
Gain on the cutting and sale of timber generally is
eligible for capital gains treatment, provided the growing
timber has been held for more than one year. If the taxpayer
sells the timber at the time it is cut, the capital gain is
measured as the difference between the sales price of the
timber less cost of sales and any unrecovered costs of
growing the timber.
If the taxpayer sells the timber prior to its being cut, a
special rule allows the taxpayer to treat the sale as a
capital gain, provided the taxpayer retains an economic
interest in the timber and holds the timber for more than one
year prior to the date of disposal. The date of disposal is
deemed to be the date the timber is cut, unless the taxpayer
receives payment for the timber prior to the date it is cut
and elects to treat the date of payment as the date of
disposal.
House Bill
No provision.
[[Page 24443]]
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
In the case of a sale of timber by the owner of the land
from which the timber is cut, the requirement that a taxpayer
retain an economic interest in the timber in order to treat
gains on sales prior to the time the timber is cut as capital
gains does not apply. Outright sales of timber by the
landowner will qualify for capital gains treatment in the
same manner as sales with a retained economic interest
qualify under present law, except that the date-of-disposal
rule will not apply.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for sales of
timber after the date of enactment.
D. Increase Section 179 Expensing (sec. 1203 of the bill and sec. 179
of the Code)
Present Law
Present law provides that, in lieu of depreciation, a
taxpayer with a sufficiently small amount of annual
investment may elect to deduct up to $20,000 (for taxable
years beginning in 2000) of the cost of qualifying property
placed in service for the taxable year (sec. 179). In
general, qualifying property is defined as depreciable
tangible personal property that is purchased for use in the
active conduct of a trade or business. The $20,000 amount is
reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the cost
of qualifying property placed in service during the taxable
year exceeds $200,000. In addition, the amount eligible to be
expensed for a taxable year may not exceed the taxable income
for a taxable year that is derived from the active conduct of
a trade or business (determined without regard to this
provision). Any amount that is not allowed as a deduction
because of the taxable income limitation may be carried
forward to succeeding taxable years (subject to similar
limitations).
The $20,000 amount is increased to $25,000 for taxable
years beginning in 2003 and thereafter. The increase is
phased in as follows: for taxable years beginning in 2001 or
2002, the amount is $24,000; and for taxable years beginning
in 2003 and thereafter, the amount is $25,000.
House Bill
No provision. However, H.R. 3081, as passed by the House,
provides that the maximum dollar amount that may be deducted
under section 179 is increased to $30,000 for taxable years
beginning in 2001 and thereafter.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, H.R. 833, as passed by the Senate,
includes a provision identical to the provision of H.R. 3081,
as passed by the House.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement includes the provision in H.R.
3081 and H.R. 833, with a modification. Under the conference
agreement, the maximum dollar amount that may be deducted
under section 179 is increased to $35,000 for taxable years
beginning in 2001 and thereafter.
E. Increase Deduction for Business Meals (sec. 204 of the bill and sec.
274(n) of the Code)
Present Law
Ordinary and necessary business expenses, as well as
expenses incurred for the production of income, are generally
deductible, subject to a number of restrictions and
limitations (secs. 162 and 212). No deduction generally is
allowed for personal, living, or family expenses (sec. 262).
Meal and entertainment expenses incurred for business
reasons or for the production of income are deductible if
certain legal and substantiation requirements are met.
Generally, the amount allowable as a deduction for business
meal and entertainment expenses is limited to 50 percent of
the otherwise deductible amount (sec. 274(n)). Exceptions to
this 50-percent rule are provided for food and beverages
provided to crew members of certain vessels and off-shore oil
or gas platforms or drilling rigs, as well as to individuals
subject to the hours of service limitations of the Department
of Transportation. No deduction is allowed for meal or
beverage expenses unless they are not lavish or extravagant
under the circumstances (sec. 274(k)(1)(A)). In addition, no
deduction is allowed for amounts paid or incurred for
membership in any club organized for business, pleasure,
recreation, or other social purpose (sec. 274(a)(3)).
An expense for food or beverages is not deductible unless
the taxpayer establishes that the item was directly related
to the ``active conduct'' of the taxpayer's trade or business
or, in the case of an item directly preceding or following a
substantial and bona fide business discussion, that the item
was ``associated with'' the active conduct of the taxpayer's
trade or business (sec. 274(a)(1)(A)). Accordingly, a
business meal expense generally is not deductible unless
there is a substantial and bona fide business discussion
during, directly preceding, or directly following the meal.
Also, the taxpayer or an employee of the taxpayer must be
present at the meal (sec. 274(k)(1)(B)).
Separate requirements apply to deductions with respect to
individuals who are traveling away from home in pursuit of a
trade or business. The absence of a business discussion is
irrelevant for purposes of the ``active conduct'' and
``associated with'' tests described above if the individual
either has the meal alone or has the meal with other persons
provided that no deduction is claimed with respect to those
other persons.
No deduction is allowed with respect to business meal and
entertainment expenses unless the taxpayer substantiates by
adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the
taxpayer's own statement (1) the amount of the expense, (2)
the time and place of the expense, (3) the business purpose
of the expense, and (4) the business relationship of the
taxpayer to the persons entertained (sec. 274(d)). The Code
authorizes the IRS to provide simpler rules for amounts below
a threshold specified by the IRS. Accordingly, the IRS
provides standard meal allowances (generally $30 per day, but
higher in specified high-cost areas and for employees ``in
the transportation industry'') that taxpayers who are
traveling away from home on business may utilize as an
alternative to the substantiation procedures specified above
(Treas. Reg. sec. 1.274(d)-1T).
house bill
No provision. However, H.R. 3081, as passed by the House,
increases the business meals deduction from the present-law
50 percent to 55 percent for taxable years beginning in 2001
and to 60 percent for taxable years beginning in 2002 and
thereafter. The bill does not alter the 50-percent limitation
with respect to the business entertainment deduction.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate amendment
No provision. However, H.R. 833, as passed by the Senate,
phases in an increase from 50 percent to 80 percent in the
deductible percentage of business meal expense for small
businesses. The present-law 50 percent limitation continues
to apply to entertainment expenses. The increase in the
deductible percentage is phased in according to the following
schedule:
Deductible
Taxable years beginning in: percentage:
2001.............................................................55
2002.............................................................60
2003.............................................................65
2004.............................................................70
2005.............................................................75
2006 and thereafter..............................................80
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after 2000.
conference agreement
The conference agreement increases the business meals
deduction from the present-law 50 percent to 70 percent for
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
F. Increased Deduction for Business Meals While Operating Under
Department of Transportation Hours of Service Limitations (sec. 205 of
the bill and sec. 274(n) of the Code)
present law
Ordinary and necessary business expenses, as well as
expenses incurred for the production of income, are generally
deductible, subject to a number of restrictions and
limitations. Generally, the amount allowable as a deduction
for food and beverage is limited to 50 percent of the
otherwise deductible amount. Exceptions to this 50 percent
rule are provided for food and beverages provided to crew
members of certain vessels and offshore oil or gas platforms
or drilling rigs.
The 1997 Act increased to 80 percent the deductible
percentage of the cost of food and beverages consumed while
away from home by an individual during, or incident to, a
period of duty subject to the hours of service limitations of
the Department of Transportation.
Individuals subject to the hours of service limitations of
the Department of Transportation include:
(1) certain air transportation employees such as pilots,
crew, dispatchers, mechanics, and control tower operators
pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration regulations,
(2) interstate truck operators and interstate bus drivers
pursuant to Department of Transportation regulations,
(3) certain railroad employees such as engineers,
conductors, train crews, dispatchers and control operations
personnel pursuant to Federal Railroad Administration
regulations, and
(4) certain merchant mariners pursuant to Coast Guard
regulations.
The increase in the deductible percentage is phased in
according to the following schedule:
Deductible
Taxable years beginning in: percentage:
1998, 1999.......................................................55
2000, 2001.......................................................60
2002, 2003.......................................................65
2004, 2005.......................................................70
2006, 2007.......................................................75
2008 and thereafter..............................................80
[[Page 24444]]
house bill
No provision. However, H.R. 3081, as passed by the House,
accelerates the increase in the deduction for business meals
while operating under Department of Transportation hours of
service limitations so that it becomes 80 percent in 2001 and
thereafter.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after 2000.
senate amendment
No provision.
conference agreement
The conference agreement includes the provision in H.R.
3081.
G. Repeal of Modification of Installment Method (sec. 206 of the bill
and secs. 453 and 453A of the Code)
present law
The installment method of accounting allows a taxpayer to
defer the recognition of income from the disposition of
certain property until payment is received. Sales to
customers in the ordinary course of business are not eligible
for the installment method, except for sales of property that
is used or produced in the trade or business of farming and
sales of timeshares and residential lots if an election to
pay interest under section 453(l)(2)(B) is made. Section
536(a) of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement
Act of 1999 prohibited the use of the installment method for
a transaction that would otherwise be required to be reported
using the accrual method of accounting, effective for
dispositions occurring on or after December 17, 1999.
A pledge rule provides that if an installment obligation is
pledged as security for any indebtedness, the net proceeds
45 of such indebtedness are treated as a payment
on the obligation, triggering the recognition of income.
Actual payments received on the installment obligation
subsequent to the receipt of the loan proceeds are not taken
into account until such subsequent payments exceed the loan
proceeds that were treated as payments. The pledge rule does
not apply to sales of property used or produced in the trade
or business of farming, to sales of timeshares and
residential lots where the taxpayer elects to pay interest
under section 453(l)(2)(B), or to dispositions where the
sales price does not exceed $150,000. The Ticket to Work and
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 provided that the
right to satisfy a loan with an installment obligation will
be treated as a pledge of the installment obligation,
effective for dispositions occurring on or after December 17,
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The net proceeds equal the gross loan proceeds less the
direct expenses of obtaining the loan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
house bill
No provision. However, H.R. 3081, as passed by the House,
repeals the prohibition on the use of the installment method
of accounting for dispositions of property that would
otherwise be reported for Federal income tax purposes using
the accrual method of accounting. Accordingly, any
disposition of property that otherwise qualifies to be
reported using the installment method of accounting may be
reported using that method without regard to whether the
disposition would otherwise be reported using the accrual
method of accounting.
The provision leaves unchanged the rule added by section
536(b) of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement
Act of 1999 that modified the installment method pledge rule.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for sales or
other dispositions on or after December 17, 1999.
senate amendment
No provision. However, H.R. 833, as passed by the Senate,
contains the provisions enacted in the Ticket to Work and
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 prohibiting the use
of the installment method for a transaction that would
otherwise be required to be reported using the accrual method
of accounting and expanding the pledge rule.
conference agreement
The conference agreement includes the provision in H.R.
3081.
H. Coordinate Farmers and Fisherman Income Averaging and the
Alternative Minimum Tax (sec. 207 of the bill and secs. 55 and 1301 of
the Code)
present law
An individual taxpayer engaged in a farming business as
defined by section 263A(e)(4) may elect to compute his or her
current year tax liability by averaging, over the prior
three-year period, all or portion of his or her taxable
income from the trade or business of farming. The averaging
election is not coordinated with the alternative minimum tax.
Thus, some farmers may become subject to the alternative
minimum tax solely as a result of the averaging election.
house bill
No provision. However, H.R. 3081, as passed by the House,
extends to individuals engaged in the trade or business of
fishing the same election to income average that is available
to farmers. For this purpose, the trade or business of
fishing is the conduct of commercial fishing as defined in
section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802) and includes the trade or
business of catching, taking, or harvesting fish that are
intended to enter commerce through sale, barter or trade.
The bill also coordinates farmers and fishermen income
averaging with the alternative minimum tax. Under the bill, a
farmer or fisherman will owe alternative minimum tax only to
the extent he or she will owe alternative minimum tax had
averaging not been elected. This result is achieved by
excluding the impact of the election to average farm and
fishing income from the calculation of both regular tax and
tentative minimum tax, solely for the purpose of determining
alternative minimum tax.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
senate amendment
No provision. However, the provision of H.R. 3081 is
included in S. 3152.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows H.R. 3081 and S. 3152.
I. Repeal Special Occupational Taxes on Producers and Marketers of
Alcoholic Beverages (sec. 208 of the bill and secs. 5081, 5091, 5111,
5121, 5131, and 5276 of the Code)
Present Law
Under present law, special occupational taxes are imposed
on producers and others engaged in the marketing of distilled
spirits, wine, and beer. These excise taxes are imposed as
part of a broader Federal tax and regulatory engine governing
the production and marketing of alcoholic beverages. The
special occupational taxes are payable annually, on July 1 of
each year. The present tax rates are as follows:
Producers: Distilled spirits and wines (sec. 5081)--$1,000
per year, per premise, Brewers (sec. 5091)--$1,000 per year,
per premise.
Wholesale dealers (sec. 5111): Liquors, wines, or beer--
$500 per year.
Retail dealers (sec. 5121): Liquors, wines, or beer--$250
per year.
Nonbeverage use of distilled spirits (sec. 5131)--$500 per
year.
Industrial use of distilled spirits (sec. 5276)--$250 per
year.
House Bill
No provision, but H.R., 3081, as passed by the House
repeals the special occupational taxes on producers and
marketers of alcoholic beverages. The provision is effective
on July 1, 2001. The provision does not affect liability for
taxes imposed with respect to periods before July 1, 2001.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement includes the provision of H.R.
3081, as passed by the House.
J. Exclusion from Gross Income for Certain Forgiven Mortgage
Obligations (sec. 209 of the bill and sec. 108 of the Code)
Present Law
Gross income includes all income from whatever source
derived, including income from the discharge of indebtedness.
However, gross income does not include discharge of
indebtedness income if: (1) the discharge occurs in a Title
11 case; (2) the discharge occurs when the taxpayer is
insolvent; (3) the indebtedness discharged is qualified farm
indebtedness; or (4) except in the case of a C corporation,
the indebtedness discharged is qualified real property
business indebtedness. No exclusion is provided under present
law for qualified residential indebtedness.
House Bill
No provision. However, H.R. 3081, as passed by the House,
permits eligible individuals to elect an exclusion from
discharge of indebtedness income to the extent such income is
attributable to the sale of real property securing qualified
residential indebtedness. Qualified residential indebtedness
is defined as indebtedness incurred or assumed by the
taxpayer for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction,
or substantial improvement of the taxpayer's principal
residence (within the meaning of section 121) and which is
secured by such residence. For this purpose, refinanced
indebtedness qualifies for the exclusion only to the extent
that the principal amount of the refinanced indebtedness does
not exceed the principal amount of the indebtedness before
the refinancing. The exclusion does not apply to qualified
farm indebtedness or qualified real property business
indebtedness.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for discharges
of indebtedness after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, the provision of H.R. 3081 is
included in S. 3152.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows H.R. 3081 and S. 3152.
K. Clarification of Cash Accounting Rules for Small Businesses (sec.
210 of the bill and sec. 446 of the Code)
Present Law
Section 446(c) of the Code generally allows a taxpayer to
select the method of accounting it will use to compute its
taxable income if such method clearly reflects the income of
the taxpayer. A taxpayer is entitled to adopt
[[Page 24445]]
any one of the permissible methods for each separate trade or
business, subject to certain restrictions. The regulations
under section 446 require that a taxpayer use an accrual
method of accounting with regard to purchases and sales of
merchandise whenever section 471 requires the taxpayer to
account for such items as inventory. 46 In
general, section 471 provides that whenever, in the opinion
of the Secretary of the Treasury, the use of inventories is
necessary to clearly determine the income of the taxpayer,
inventories must be taken by the taxpayer. Treas. Reg. sec.
1.471-1 requires a taxpayer to account for inventories when
the production, purchase, or sale of merchandise is an
income-producing factor in the taxpayer's business. Treas.
Reg. sec. 1.162-3 requires taxpayers carrying materials and
supplies (other than incidental materials and supplies) on
hand to deduct the cost of materials and supplies only in the
amount that they are actually consumed and used in operations
during the tax year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Treas. Reg. sec. 1.446-1(c)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement provides that, notwithstanding any
other provision of the Code, a taxpayer is not required to
use an accrual method of accounting if the average annual
gross receipts of the taxpayer (or any predecessor) do not
exceed $2.5 million for all prior taxable years beginning
after October 31, 1999 (including the prior taxable years of
any predecessor). Thus, even if the production, purchase, or
sale of merchandise is an income-producing factor in the
taxpayer's business, the taxpayer is not required to use an
accrual method of accounting with regard to such purchases
and sales if the average annual gross receipts of the
taxpayer do not exceed $2.5 million.
The provision also provides that a taxpayer meeting the
average annual gross receipts test is not required to account
for inventories under section 471. If a taxpayer elects not
to account for inventory under section 471, the taxpayer is
required to treat such inventory in the same manner as a
material or supply that is not incidental. It is the
intention of the conferees that a taxpayer that elects to
treat inventory as a material or supply is to include in
expense the charges for materials and supplies only in the
amount that they are actually consumed and used in operation
during the taxable year for which the return is made,
provided that the costs of such materials and supplies have
not been deducted in determining the net income or loss or
taxable income for any previous year. 47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See Treas. Reg. sec. 1.162-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual gross receipts are determined by averaging
the gross receipts of the three taxable year period ending
with such prior taxable year.
For example, assume a calendar year entity had gross
receipts of $1.5 million in 1998, $2.5 million in 1999, $3.5
million in 2000, and $4.5 million in 2001. In addition, the
sale of inventory is an income-producing factor in the
taxpayer's business. Average annual gross receipts are $2.5
million in 2000 and $3.5 million in 2001. In calendar year
2001, the entity may use the cash method of accounting
notwithstanding that the production, purchase, or sale of
merchandise is an income-producing factor in the taxpayer's
trade or business, because it had average annual gross
receipts of $2.5 million or less for all prior taxable years.
In calendar year 2002, the entity may not use the cash method
of accounting with regard to purchases and sales of
merchandise, because average annual gross receipts for a
prior taxable year (2001) exceed $2.5 million.
In addition, the rules of paragraph (2) and (3) section
448(c) (regarding the aggregation of related taxpayers,
taxpayers not in existence for the entire three year period,
short taxable years, definition of gross receipts, and
treatment of predecessors) shall apply for purposes of
determining the average annual gross receipts test.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after date of enactment. Any change in the
taxpayer's method of accounting permitted as a result of the
provision is treated as a voluntary change initiated by the
taxpayer with the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Any required section 481(a) adjustment is to be taken into
account over a period not to exceed four years under
principles consistent with those in Rev. Proc. 99-
49.48
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 1999-52 I.R.B. 725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Authorize Payment of Interest on Business Checking Accounts (sec.
211 of the bill)
The bill would eliminate the Federal prohibition on
depository institutions paying interest on demand deposits.
Thus, under the bill, depository institutions would be
permitted to pay interest on business checking accounts.
Effective date.--The repeal of the prohibition on the
payment of interest would be effective two years after the
date of enactment. During the two year period beginning on
the date of enactment, the bill would permit depository
institutions to offer business customers checking accounts
that allow the funds in the account to be swept into an
interest-bearing account on a daily basis.
TITLE III. HEALTH INSURANCE AND LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE PROVISIONS
A. Accelerate 100-Percent Self-Employed Health Insurance Deduction
(sec. 301 of the bill and sec. 162(l) of the Code)
Present Law
Under present law, the individual income tax treatment of
health insurance expenses depends on the individual's
circumstances. Self-employed individuals may deduct a portion
of health insurance expenses for the individual and his or
her spouse and dependents. The deductible percentage of
health insurance expenses of a self-employed individual is 60
percent in 2000 through 2001, 70 percent in 2002, and 100
percent in 2003 and thereafter. The deduction for health
insurance expenses of self-employed individuals is not
available for any month in which the taxpayer is eligible to
participate in a subsidized health plan maintained by the
employer of the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse.
Employees can exclude from income 100 percent of employer-
provided health insurance.
Individuals who itemize deductions may deduct their health
insurance expenses only to the extent that the total medical
expenses of the individual exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted
gross income (sec. 213). Subject to certain dollar
limitations, premiums for qualified long-term care insurance
are treated as medical expenses for purposes of the itemized
deduction for medical expenses (sec. 213). The amount of
qualified long-term care insurance premiums that may be taken
into account for 2000 is as follows: $220 in the case of an
individual 40 years old or less; $410 in the case of an
individual who is over 40 but not more than 50; $820 in the
case of an individual who is more than 50 but not more than
60; $2,220 in the case of an individual who is more than 60
but not more than 70; and $2,750 in the case of an individual
who is more than 70. These dollar limits are indexed for
inflation.
The self-employed health deduction also applies to
qualified long-term care insurance premiums treated as
medical care for purposes of the itemized deduction for
medical expenses.
House Bill
No provision. However, H.R. 3081, as passed by the House,
increases the deduction for health insurance expenses (and
qualified long-term care insurance expenses) of self-employed
individuals to 100 percent beginning in 2001. H.R. 3081 also
provides that the deduction is not available in any month in
which the taxpayer participates in an employer-subsidized
health plan.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, H.R. 833, as passed by the Senate,
increases the deduction for health insurance expenses (and
qualified long-term care insurance expenses) of self-employed
individuals to 100 percent beginning in 2001.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement includes the provision in H.R.
3081.
B. Above-the-Line Deduction for Health Insurance Expenses (sec. 302 of
the bill and new sec. 222 of the Code)
Present Law
Under present law, the individual income tax treatment of
health insurance expenses depends on the individual's
circumstances. Self-employed individuals may deduct a portion
of health insurance expenses for the individual and his or
her spouse and dependents. The deductible percentage of
health insurance expenses of a self-employed individual is 60
percent in 2000 and 2001; 70 percent in 2002; and 100 percent
in 2003 and thereafter. The deduction for health insurance
expenses of self-employed individuals is not available for
any month in which the taxpayer is eligible to participate in
a subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of the
taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse. The deduction applies to
qualified long-term care insurance premiums treated as
medical expenses under the itemized deduction for medical
expenses, described below.
Employees can exclude from income 100 percent of employer-
provided health insurance or qualified long-term care
insurance.
Individuals who itemize deductions may deduct their health
insurance expenses only to the extent that the total medical
expenses of the individual exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted
gross income (sec. 213). Subject to certain dollar
limitations, premiums for qualified long-term care insurance
are treated as medical expenses for purposes of the itemized
deduction for medical expenses (sec. 213). The amount of
qualified long-term care insurance premiums that may be taken
into
[[Page 24446]]
account for 2000 is as follows: $220 in the case of an
individual 40 years old or less; $410 in the case of an
individual who is more than 40 but not more than 50; $820 in
the case of an individual who is more than 50 but not more
than 60; $2,200 in the case of an individual who is more than
60 but not more than 70; and $2,750 in the case of an
individual who is more than 70. These dollar limits are
indexed for inflation.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, H.R. 833, as passed by the Senate,
provides an above-the-line deduction for a percentage of the
amount paid during the year for insurance which constitutes
medical care (as defined under sec. 213, other than long-term
care insurance treated as medical care under sec. 213) for
the taxpayer and his or her spouse and
dependents.49 The deductible percentage is: 25
percent in 2002, 2003, and 2004; 35 percent in 2005; 65
percent in 2006; and 100 percent in 2007 and thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ The deduction only applies to health insurance that
constitutes medical care; it does not apply to medical
expenses. The deduction applies to self-insured arrangements
(provided such arrangements constitute insurance, e.g., there
is appropriate risk-shifting) and coverage under employer
plans treated as insurance under section 104. Another
provision of the bill provides a similar deduction for
qualified long-term care insurance expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deduction is not available to an individual for any
month in which the individual is covered under an employer-
sponsored health plan if at least 50 percent of the cost of
the coverage is paid or incurred by the
employer.50 Thus, the individual must pay for more
than 50 percent of the cost of the coverage in order to be
eligible for the deduction. For purposes of this rule, any
amount excludable from the gross income of the employee under
the exclusion for employer-provided health coverage is
treated as paid or incurred by the employer; thus, for
example, health insurance purchased by an employee through a
cafeteria plan with salary reduction amounts is considered to
be paid for by the employer.51 In determining
whether the 50-percent threshold is met, all health plans of
the employer in which the employee participates are treated
as a single plan. If the employer pays for less than 50
percent of the cost of all health plans in which the
individual participates, the deduction is available only with
respect to each plan with respect to which the employer
subsidy is less than 50 percent. Cost is determined as under
the health care continuation rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ This rule is applied separately with respect to
qualified long-term care insurance.
\51\ Excludable employer contributions to a health flexible
spending arrangement or medical savings account (including
salary reduction contributions) are also considered amounts
paid by the employer for health insurance that constitutes
medical care. Salary reduction contributions are not
considered to be amounts paid by the employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deduction is not available with respect to insurance
providing coverage for accidents, disability, dental care,
vision care, or a specific disease or making payments of a
fixed amount per day (or other period) on account of
hospitalization. Such insurance and employer payments for
such insurance are not taken into account in determining
whether the employee pays for more than 50 percent of the
cost of health insurance.
The deduction is not available to individuals enrolled in
Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program (``FEHBP''),52 Champus, VA, Indian Health
Service, or Children's Health Insurance programs. Thus, for
example, the deduction is not available with respect to
Medigap coverage, because such coverage is provided to
individuals enrolled in Medicare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ This rule does not prevent individuals covered by the
FEHBP from deducting premiums for health care continuation
coverage, provided the requirements for the deduction are
otherwise met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provision authorizes the Secretary to prescribe rules
necessary to carry out the provision, including appropriate
reporting requirements for employers.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2001.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement includes the provision in H.R.
833, except that the deductible percentage is 25 percent in
2001 through 2003, 35 percent in 2004, 65 percent in 2005,
and 100 percent in 2006 and thereafter.
The following examples illustrate the application of the
rule denying the deduction if the employer pays 50 percent or
more of the cost of the coverage.
Example 1: Employee A participates in an employer-sponsored
health plan. The annual cost for single coverage is $3,000,
and the annual additional cost for coverage for A's spouse
and dependents is $1,000. The employer pays 100 percent of
the cost of individual coverage, but does not pay any
additional amount for family coverage. A chooses family
coverage. The total amount the employer pays for the
insurance is $3,000, which is 75 percent of the total cost of
the coverage ($4,000). A also purchases qualified long-term
care insurance under an employer-sponsored plan, and pays for
100 percent of the cost of this coverage on an after-tax
basis. The deduction is not available with respect to A's
expenses for health insurance.53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Under another provision of the bill, a deduction is
available with respect to A's qualified long-term care
insurance premiums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 2: Employee B participates in two employer-
sponsored health plans. One plan provides major medical
coverage. The cost of this plan is $2,000 per year. The
employer pays one-half of the cost of this plan. The second
plan provides only dental insurance. The cost of the dental
plan is $300 per year, which is paid by the employee. In
determining whether B is entitled to the deduction, the
dental plan is disregarded. Thus, the total cost of the
health plans in which B participates is $2,000. The employer
pays for 50 percent of this total cost. B may not deduct her
share of the premium for the major medical plan, nor the cost
of the dental insurance.
Example 3: Employee C participates in an employer-sponsored
health plan. The cost of the plan is $4,000. The employer
pays $1,000 of the cost of the plan directly, and Employee C
pays the remainder of the $3,000 cost of the plan by salary
reduction through a cafeteria plan. The $1,000 employer
contribution and the $3,000 salary reduction contributions
are all employer payments. Thus, the employer pays for the
entire cost of the plan, and the deduction is not available.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
C. Above-the-Line Deduction for Long-Term Care Insurance Expenses
(secs. 1302 and 1304 of the bill and new sec. 222 of the Code)
Present Law
Under present law, the individual income tax treatment of
health insurance expenses depends on the individual's
circumstances. Self-employed individuals may deduct a portion
of health insurance expenses for the individual and his or
her spouse and dependents. The deductible percentage of
health insurance expenses of a self-employed individual is 60
percent in 2000 and 2001; 70 percent in 2002; and 100 percent
in 2003 and thereafter. The deduction for health insurance
expenses of self-employed individuals is not available for
any month in which the taxpayer is eligible to participate in
a subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of the
taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse. The deduction applies to
qualified long-term care insurance premiums treated as
medical expenses under the itemized deduction for medical
expenses, described below.
Employees can exclude from income 100 percent of employer-
provided health insurance or qualified long-term care
insurance.
Individuals who itemize deductions may deduct their health
insurance expenses only to the extent that the total medical
expenses of the individual exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted
gross income (sec. 213). Subject to certain dollar
limitations, premiums for qualified long-term care insurance
are treated as medical expenses for purposes of the itemized
deduction for medical expenses (sec. 213). The amount of
qualified long-term care insurance premiums that may be taken
into account for 2000 is as follows: $220 in the case of an
individual 40 years old or less; $410 in the case of an
individual who is more than 40 but not more than 50; $820 in
the case of an individual who is more than 50 but not more
than 60; $2,200 in the case of an individual who is more than
60 but not more than 70; and $2,750 in the case of an
individual who is more than 70. These dollar limits are
indexed for inflation.
In order for a long-term care contract to be qualified for
purposes of the Code, the contract must satisfy certain
consumer protection provisions of the long-term care
insurance model act and regulations promulgated by the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (``NAIC'')
adopted as of January 1993. In addition, issuers of qualified
long-term care contracts are required to satisfy certain
disclosure requirements. An excise tax is imposed with
respect to the failure to meet the applicable disclosure
requirements.54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ These provisions apply for all provisions of the Code
relating to qualified long-term care contracts, not only the
above-the-line deduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, H.R. 833, as passed by the Senate,
provides an above-the-line deduction for a percentage of the
amount paid during the year for qualified long-term care
insurance for the taxpayer and his or her spouse and
dependents, subject to the present-law premium
limitations.55 The deductible percentage is: 25
percent in 2002, 2003, and 2004; 35 percent in 2005; 65
percent in 2006; and 100 percent in 2007 and thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ The deduction only applies to insurance that constitutes
medical care; it does not apply to long-term care expenses.
The deduction applies to self-insured arrangements (provided
such arrangements constitute insurance, e.g., there is
appropriate risk-shifting) and coverage under employer plans
treated as insurance under section 104. Another provision of
the bill provides a similar deduction for health insurance
expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deduction is not available to an individual for any
month in which the individual is covered under an employer-
sponsored
[[Page 24447]]
long-term care plan if at least 50 percent of the cost of the
coverage is paid or incurred by the employer.56
For purposes of this rule, any amounts excludable from the
gross income of the employee with respect to qualified long-
term care insurance are treated as paid or incurred by the
employer. In determining whether the 50-percent threshold is
met, all plans of the employer providing long-term care
insurance in which the employee participates are treated as a
single plan. If the employer pays less than 50 percent of the
cost of all long-term care plans in which the individual
participates, the deduction is available only with respect to
each plan with respect to which the employer pays for less
than 50 percent of the cost. Cost is determined as under the
health care continuation rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ This rule is applied separately with respect to health
insurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provision authorizes the Secretary to prescribe rules
necessary to carry out the provision, including appropriate
reporting requirements for employers.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2001.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement includes the provision in H.R.
833, except that the deductible percentage is 25 percent in
2001 through 2003, 35 percent in 2004, 65 percent in 2005,
and 100 percent in 2006 and thereafter.57
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See the description of the above-the-line deduction for
health insurance expenses for examples of the operation of
the rule denying the deduction if the employer pays for 50
percent or more of the cost of the coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conference agreement adds additional consumer
protection provisions for qualified long-term care contracts.
In order to be a qualified contract for purposes of the Code,
a long-term care insurance contract must satisfy the NAIC
model act and regulations relating to contingent
nonforfeiture benefits, if the policyholder declines the
offer of a nonforfeiture provision. In addition, the
conference agreement modifies the disclosure requirements
applicable to issuers of long-term care contracts by adding
the NAIC requirements regarding suitability and disclosure of
rating practices. The conference agreement also updates
present-law references to the NAIC model act and regulations
to reflect current provisions.
Effective date.--The above-the-line deduction is effective
for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000. The
consumer protection provisions are effective with respect to
policies issued more than 1 year after the date of enactment.
D. Medical Savings Accounts (``MSAs'') (sec. 303 of the bill and sec.
220 of the Code)
Present Law
Within limits, contributions to a medical savings account
(``MSA'') 58 are deductible in determining
adjusted gross income (``AGI'') if made by an eligible
individual and are excludable from gross income and wages for
employment tax purposes if made by the employer of an
eligible individual. Earnings on amounts in an MSA are not
currently taxable. Distributions from an MSA for medical
expenses are not taxable. Distributions not used for medical
expenses are taxable. In addition, distributions not used for
medical expenses are subject to an additional 15-percent tax
unless the distribution is made after age 65, death, or
disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ In general, an MSA is a trust or custodial account
created exclusively for the benefit of the account holder and
is subject to rules similar to those applicable to individual
retirement arrangements. The trustee of an MSA can be a bank,
insurance company, or other person who demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Secretary that the manner in which such
person will administer the trust will be consistent with
applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSAs are available to self-employed individuals
59 and to employees covered under an employer-
sponsored high deductible plan of a small employer. An
employer is a small employer if it employed, on average, no
more than 50 employees on business days during either the
preceding or the second preceding year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Self-employed individuals include more than 2-percent
shareholders of S corporations who are treated as partners
for purposes of fringe benefit rules pursuant to section
1372. Self-employed individuals are eligible for an MSA
regardless of the size of the entity for which the individual
performs services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for an employee of a small employer to be eligible
to make MSA contributions (or to have employer contributions
made on his or her behalf), the employee must be covered
under an employer-sponsored high deductible health plan (see
the definition below) and must not be covered under any other
health plan (other than a plan that provides certain
permitted coverage).
Similarly, in order to be eligible to make contributions to
an MSA, a self-employed individual must be covered under a
high deductible health plan and no other health plan (other
than a plan that provides certain permitted coverage,
described below). A self-employed individual is not an
eligible individual (by reason of being self-employed) if the
high deductible plan under which the individual is covered is
established or maintained by an employer of the individual
(or the individual's spouse).
The maximum annual contribution that can be made to an MSA
for a year is 65 percent of the deductible under the high
deductible plan in the case of individual coverage and 75
percent of the deductible in the case of family coverage.
A high deductible plan is a health plan with an annual
deductible of at least $1,550 and no more than $2,350 in the
case of individual coverage and at least $3,100 and no more
than $4,650 in the case of family coverage. In addition, the
maximum out-of-pocket expenses with respect to allowed costs
(including the deductible) must be no more than $3,100 in the
case of individual coverage and no more than $5,700 in the
case of family coverage.60 A plan does not fail to
qualify as a high deductible plan merely because it does not
have a deductible for preventive care as required by State
law. A plan does not qualify as a high deductible health plan
if substantially all of the coverage under the plan is for
permitted coverage (as described above). In the case of a
self-insured plan, the plan must in fact be insurance (e.g.,
there must be appropriate risk shifting) and not merely a
reimbursement arrangement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ These dollar amounts are for 2000. These amounts are
indexed for inflation in $50 increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of taxpayers benefiting annually from an MSA
contribution is limited to a threshold level (generally
750,000 taxpayers). If it is determined in a year that the
threshold level has been exceeded (called a ``cut-off'' year)
then, in general, for succeeding years during the 4-year
pilot period 1997-2000, only those individuals who (1) made
an MSA contribution or had an employer MSA contribution for
the year or a preceding year (i.e., are active MSA
participants) or (2) are employed by a participating
employer, is eligible for an MSA contribution. In determining
whether the threshold for any year has been exceeded, MSAs of
individuals who were not covered under a health insurance
plan for the six month period ending on the date on which
coverage under a high deductible plan commences would not be
taken into account.61 However, if the threshold
level is exceeded in a year, previously uninsured individuals
are subject to the same restriction on contributions in
succeeding years as other individuals. That is, they would
not be eligible for an MSA contribution for a year following
a cut-off year unless they are an active MSA participant
(i.e., had an MSA contribution for the year or a preceding
year) or are employed by a participating employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Permitted coverage, as described above, does not
constitute coverage under a health insurance plan for this
purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of MSAs established has not exceeded the
threshold level.
After December 31, 2000, no new contributions may be made
to MSAs except by or on behalf of individuals who previously
had MSA contributions and employees who are employed by a
participating employer. An employer is a participating
employer if (1) the employer made any MSA contributions for
any year to an MSA on behalf of employees or (2) at least 20
percent of the employees covered under a high deductible plan
made MSA contributions of at least $100 in the year 2000.
Self-employed individuals who made contributions to an MSA
during the period 1997-2000 also may continue to make
contributions after 2000.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement extends the MSA program through
2002. The same rules that apply to the limit on MSAs for 1999
apply to 2000 and 2001. Thus, for example, the threshold
level in those years is 750,000 taxpayers.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
E. Deduction for Providing Long-Term Care to Household Members (sec.
305 of the bill and new sec. 223 of the Code)
present law
Under present law, the individual income tax treatment of
health insurance expenses depends on the individual's
circumstances. Self-employed individuals may deduct a portion
of health insurance expenses for the individual and his or
her spouse and dependents. The deductible percentage of
health insurance expenses of a self-employed individual is 60
percent in 2000 and 2001; 70 percent in 2002; and 100 percent
in 2003 and thereafter. The deduction for health insurance
expenses of self-employed individuals is not available for
any month in which the taxpayer is eligible to participate in
a subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of the
taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse. The deduction applies to
qualified long-term care insurance premiums treated as
medical expenses under the itemized deduction for medical
expenses, described below.
Employees can exclude from income 100 percent of employer-
provided health insurance or qualified long-term care
insurance.
Individuals who itemize deductions may deduct their health
insurance expenses only
[[Page 24448]]
to the extent that the total medical expenses of the
individual exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (sec.
213). Subject to certain dollar limitations, premiums for
qualified long-term care insurance are treated as medical
expenses for purposes of the itemized deduction for medical
expenses (sec. 213). The amount of qualified long-term care
insurance premiums that may be taken into account for 2000 is
as follows: $220 in the case of an individual 40 years old or
less; $410 in the case of an individual who is more than 40
but not more than 50; $820 in the case of an individual who
is more than 50 but not more than 60; $2,200 in the case of
an individual who is more than 60 but not more than 70; and
$2,750 in the case of an individual who is more than 70.
These dollar limits are indexed for inflation.
To qualify as a dependent under present law, an individual
must: (1) be a specified relative or member of the taxpayer's
household; (2) be a citizen or resident of the U.S. or
resident of Canada or Mexico; (3) not be required to file a
joint tax return with his or her spouse; (4) have gross
income below the dependent exemption amount ($2,800 in 2000)
if not the taxpayer's child; and (5) receive over half of his
or her support from the taxpayer. If no one person
contributes over half the support of an individual, the
taxpayer is treated as meeting the support requirement if:
(1) over half the support is received from persons each of
whom, but for the fact that he or she did not provide over
half such support, could claim the individual as a dependent;
(2) the taxpayer contributes over 10 percent of such support;
and (3) other caregivers who provide over 10 percent of the
support file written declarations stating that they will not
claim the individual as a dependent.
house bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement provides taxpayers who maintain a
household including one or more qualifying individuals a
deduction with respect to each qualifying individual with
long- term care needs, regardless of the expenses incurred in
the care of the qualifying dependent. The deduction does not
reduce adjusted gross income (i.e., is not ``above-the-
line''); however, the deduction is available whether or not
the taxpayer itemizes deductions. The deductible amount is
reduced by amounts received under a long-term care contract
(whether or not qualified and including contracts that pay on
a per diem or similar basis) covering the qualifying
dependent. The deduction is phased out for higher income
taxpayers in the same manner as the personal exemption
amount.62 The deduction is taken into account in
determining alternative minimum taxable income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ The deduction is added to the taxpayer's personal
exemptions for purposes of the personal exemption phaseout.
For 2000, the personal exemption amount phases out over the
following ranges of adjusted gross income: $193,400-$315,9000
for married taxpayers filing a joint return; $161,150-
$283,650 for taxpayers filing as heads of households; and
$128,950- $251,450 for unmarried taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deductible amount is $3,000 in 2001 and increases by
$1,000 each year thereafter until the limit is $10,000 in
2010 and thereafter.
An individual is a qualifying individual with respect to a
taxpayer if the individual (1) is the spouse of the taxpayer
or a relative of the taxpayer determined under the rules
relating to the dependency exemption, and (2) lives in a
household maintained by the taxpayer for the entire taxable
year. In addition, if the individual is not the taxpayer's
spouse or a child of the taxpayer (as determined under the
dependency rules), the individual's gross income for the year
must be less than the sum of the personal exemption amount,
the standard deduction for a single taxpayer and, if
applicable, the additional deduction for the elderly and
blind.
A qualifying individual must be certified before the due
date for the return for the taxable year (without regard to
extensions) as having long-term care needs (as described
below based on the age of the individual) for at least 180
consecutive days. Some portion of the 180-day period must
fall within the taxable year. The deduction is not available
unless the certification was made no more than 39-1/2 months
before the due date for the return (or such other time as
specified by the Secretary).
In general, an individual who is at least six years of age
is considered to have long-term care needs if the individual
is unable to perform at least three activities of daily
living (``ADLs'') without substantial assistance due to a
loss of functional capacity including individuals born with a
condition that is comparable to a loss of functional
capacity. As under the present-law rules relating to long-
term care, ADLs are eating, toileting, transferring, bathing,
dressing and continence. Substantial assistance includes both
hands-on assistance (that is, the physical assistance of
another person without which the individual would be unable
to perform the ADL) and stand-by assistance (that is, the
presence of another person within arm's reach of the
individual that is necessary to prevent, by physical
intervention, injury to the individual when performing the
ADL).
As an alternative to the two-ADL test, an individual is
considered to have long-term care needs if the individual (1)
requires substantial supervision to protect the individual
from threats to health and safety due to severe cognitive
impairment and (2) is unable to perform, without reminding or
cuing assistance, at least one ADL or to the extent provided
in regulations,63 is unable to engage in age
appropriate activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The regulations are to be prescribed by the Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A child between the ages of two and six is considered to
have long-term care needs if the child requires substantial
assistance with two of the following ADLs: eating,
transferring, and mobility.
A child under the age of two is considered to have long-
term care needs if the child requires specific durable
medical equipment (e.g., a respirator) by reason of a severe
health condition or requires a skilled practitioner to
address the child's condition when the parents are absent.
For purposes of the provision, a taxpayer would be
considered to be maintaining a household for any period only
if over one-half the cost of maintaining the household for
the period is provided by the taxpayer (or, if married, the
taxpayer and his or her spouse). If the taxpayer is married
at the end of the taxable year, the deduction is available
only if the taxpayer and his or her spouse file a joint
return. An individual legally separated is not considered
married. An individual is not considered married if the
individual (1) files a separate return for the year, (2)
maintains a household which constitutes the principal place
of abode for a qualifying individual for more than one-half
of the year, and (3) during the last six months of the year
the individual's spouse is not a member of the individual's
household.
The deduction is not available unless the taxpayer
identification number of the qualifying individual is
included on the taxpayer's return for the year. In addition,
the deduction is not available unless the taxpayer includes
on the return a physician identification number (e.g., the
Unique Physician Identification Number currently required for
Medicare billing). The IRS is authorized to use mathematical
error procedures to deny claims for the deduction during
return processing if the taxpayer does not provide valid
taxpayer identification numbers and physician identification
numbers.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
TITLE IV. PENSION AND INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENT PROVISIONS
1
Subtitle A. Individual Retirement Arrangements (``IRAs'') (sec. 401-404
of the bill) (sec. 101 of the House bill, secs. 101-104 of the Senate
amendment, and secs. 219, 408, and 408A of the Code)
Present Law
In general
There are two general types of individual retirement
arrangements (``IRAs'') under present law: traditional IRAs,
to which both deductible and nondeductible contributions may
be made, and Roth IRAs. The Federal income tax rules
regarding each type of IRA (and IRA contribution) differ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The provisions of the bill as passed by the House and the
Senate did not contain provisions relating to pensions and
individual retirement arrangements. Provisions described
under the House bill refer to the provisions of H.R. 1102,
the ``Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform
Act of 2000,'' as passed by the House. For legislative
history, see H.R. Rep. No. 106-753. Provisions described
under the Senate amendment refer to the provisions of H.R.
1102, the ``Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000,'' as
reported by the Senate Committee on Finance on September 13,
2000. For legislative history, see S.Rep. No. 106-411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional IRAs
Under present law, an individual may make deductible
contributions to an IRA up to the lesser of $2,000 or the
individual's compensation if neither the individual nor the
individual's spouse is an active participant in an employer-
sponsored retirement plan. In the case of a married couple,
deductible IRA contributions of up to $2,000 can be made for
each spouse (including, for example, a homemaker who does not
work outside the home), if the combined compensation of both
spouses is at least equal to the contributed amount. If the
individual (or the individual's spouse) is an active
participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, the
$2,000 deduction limit is phased out for taxpayers with
modified adjusted gross income (``AGI'') over certain levels
for the taxable year.
The AGI phase-out limits for taxpayers who are active
participants in employer-sponsored plans are as follows:
Single Taxpayers
AGI Phase-out range
Taxable years beginning in:
2000...................................................$32,000-42,000
2001....................................................33,000-43,000
2002....................................................34,000-44,000
2003....................................................40,000-50,000
2004....................................................45,000-55,000
2005 and thereafter.....................................50,000-60,000
[[Page 24449]]
Taxpayers Filing Joint Returns
Phase-out range
Taxable years beginning in:
2000...................................................$52,000-62,000
2001....................................................53,000-63,000
2002....................................................54,000-64,000
2003....................................................60,000-70,000
2004....................................................65,000-75,000
2005....................................................70,000-80,000
2006....................................................75,000-85,000
2007 and thereafter....................................80,000-100,000
The AGI phase-out range for married taxpayers filing a
separate return is $0 to $10,000.
If the individual is not an active participant in an
employer-sponsored retirement plan, but the individual's
spouse is, the $2,000 deduction limit is phased out for
taxpayers with AGI between $150,000 and $160,000.
To the extent an individual cannot or does not make
deductible contributions to an IRA or contributions to a Roth
IRA, the individual may make nondeductible contributions to a
traditional IRA.
Amounts held in a traditional IRA are includible in income
when withdrawn (except to the extent the withdrawal is a
return of nondeductible contributions). Includible amounts
withdrawn prior to attainment of age 59-1/2 are subject to an
additional 10-percent early withdrawal tax, unless the
withdrawal is due to death or disability, is made in the form
of certain periodic payments, is used to pay medical expenses
in excess of 7.5 percent of AGI, is used to purchase health
insurance for an unemployed individual, is used for education
expenses, or is used for first-time homebuyer expenses of up
to $10,000.
Roth IRAs
Individuals with AGI below certain levels may make
nondeductible contributions to a Roth IRA. The maximum annual
contribution that may be made to a Roth IRA is the lesser of
$2,000 or the individual's compensation for the year. The
contribution limit is reduced to the extent an individual
makes contributions to any other IRA for the same taxable
year. As under the rules relating to IRAs generally, a
contribution of up to $2,000 for each spouse may be made to a
Roth IRA provided the combined compensation of the spouses is
at least equal to the contributed amount. The maximum annual
contribution that can be made to a Roth IRA is phased out for
single taxpayers with AGI between $95,000 and $110,000 and
for taxpayers filing a joint return with AGI between $150,000
and $160,000. For married taxpayers filing a separate return,
the phase-out range is $0 to $10,000.
Taxpayers with modified AGI of $100,000 or less generally
may convert a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. The amount
converted is includible in income as if a withdrawal had been
made, except that the 10-percent early withdrawal tax does
not apply and, if the conversion occurred in 1998, the income
inclusion may be spread ratably over 4 years. Married
taxpayers who file separate returns cannot convert a
traditional IRA into a Roth IRA.
Amounts held in a Roth IRA that are withdrawn as a
qualified distribution are neither includible in income, nor
subject to the additional 10-percent tax on early
withdrawals. A qualified distribution is a distribution that
(1) is made after the 5-taxable year period beginning with
the first taxable year for which the individual made a
contribution to a Roth IRA, and (2) which is made after
attainment of age 59\1/2\, on account of death or disability,
or is made for first-time homebuyer expenses of up to
$10,000.
To the extent attributable to earnings, distributions from
a Roth IRA that are not qualified distributions are
includible in income and subject to the 10-percent early
withdrawal tax (unless an exception applies).2 The
same exceptions to the early withdrawal tax that apply to
IRAs apply to Roth IRAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Early distribution of converted amounts may also
accelerate income inclusion of converted amounts that are
taxable under the 4-year rule applicable to 1998 conversions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxation of charitable contributions
Generally, a taxpayer who itemizes deductions may deduct
cash contributions to charity, as well as the fair market
value of contributions of property. The amount of the
deduction otherwise allowable for the taxable year with
respect to a charitable contribution may be reduced,
depending on the type of property contributed, the type of
charitable organization to which the property is contributed,
and the income of the taxpayer.
For donations of cash by individuals, total deductible
contributions to public charities may not exceed 50 percent
of a taxpayer's AGI for a taxable year. To the extent a
taxpayer has not exceeded the 50-percent limitation,
contributions of cash to private foundations and certain
other nonprofit organizations and contributions of capital
gain property to public charities generally may be deducted
up to 30 percent of the taxpayer's AGI. If a taxpayer makes a
contribution in one year which exceeds the applicable 50-
percent or 30-percent limitation, the excess amount of the
contribution may be carried over and deducted during the next
five taxable years.
In addition to the percentage limitations imposed
specifically on charitable contributions, present law imposes
a reduction on most itemized deductions, including charitable
contribution deductions, for taxpayers with AGI in excess of
a threshold amount, which is indexed annually for inflation.
The threshold amount for 2000 is $128,950 ($64,475 for
married individuals filing separate returns). For those
deductions that are subject to the reduction, the total
amount of itemized deductions is reduced by 3 percent of AGI
over the threshold amount, but not by more than 80 percent of
itemized deductions subject to the reduction. The effect of
this reduction may be to limit a taxpayer's ability to deduct
charitable contributions.
House Bill
Increase in annual contribution limits
The House bill increases the maximum annual dollar
contribution limit for IRA contributions from $2,000 to
$3,000 in 2001, $4,000 in 2002, and $5,000 in 2003. The limit
is indexed for inflation in $500 increments in 2004 and
thereafter.
Additional catch-up contributions
In the case of individuals who have attained age 50 before
the end of the taxable year, the IRA contribution limit is
$5,000, beginning in 2001.
Increase in AGI limits for deductible IRA contributions
No provision.
Roth IRAs
No provision.
Deemed IRAs under employer plans
No provision.
Tax-free IRA withdrawals for charitable purposes
No provision.
Effective date
The provision is effective for taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
Increase in annual contribution limits
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Additional catch-up contributions
The bill provides that individuals who have attained age 50
may make additional catch-up IRA contributions. The otherwise
maximum contribution limit (before application of the AGI
phase-out limits) for an individual who has attained age 50
before the end of the taxable year is increased by 50
percent.
Increase in AGI limits for deductible IRA contributions
Under the bill, the increases in the AGI phase-out limits
for active participants in an employer-sponsored plan are
evened out. In addition, the phase-out range for married
taxpayers filing separately is conformed to the phase-out
range for single taxpayers. The AGI phase-out limits under
the bill are as follows.
Taxpayers Filing Returns Other Than Joint Returns
AGI Phase-out range
Taxable years beginning in:
2001...................................................$36,000-46,000
2002....................................................40,000-50,000
2003....................................................44,000-54,000
2004....................................................48,000-58,000
2005 and thereafter.....................................50,000-60,000
Taxpayers Filing Joint Returns
AGI Phase-out range
Taxable years beginning in:
2001...................................................$56,000-66,000
2002....................................................60,000-70,000
2003....................................................64,000-74,000
2004....................................................68,000-78,000
2005....................................................72,000-82,000
2006....................................................76,000-86,000
2007 and thereafter....................................80,000-100,000
The present-law income phase-out range for an individual
who is not an active participant in an employer-sponsored
plan, but whose spouse is, remains at $150,000 to $160,000.
Roth IRAs
The bill increases the income phase-out range for Roth IRA
contributions to $190,000 to $220,000 for married couples
filing a joint return. In addition, the bill applies to
married taxpayers filing a separate return the same phase-out
range that applies to single taxpayers.
Under the bill, the income limit for conversions of
traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs is $200,000 for married couples
filing a joint return. For all other taxpayers (including
married taxpayers filing a separate return), the limit is
$100,000.
Deemed IRAs under employer plans
The bill provides that, if an eligible retirement plan
permits employees to make voluntary employee contributions to
a separate account or annuity that (1) is established under
the plan, and (2) meets the requirements applicable to either
traditional IRAs or Roth IRAs, then the separate account or
annuity is deemed to be a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA, as
applicable, for all purposes of the Code. For example, the
reporting requirements applicable to IRAs apply. The deemed
IRA, and contributions thereto, are not subject to the Code
rules pertaining to
[[Page 24450]]
the eligible retirement plan. In addition, the deemed IRA,
and contributions thereto, are not taken into account in
applying such rules to any other contributions under the
plan. The deemed IRA, and contributions thereto, are subject
to the exclusive benefit and fiduciary rules of ERISA to the
extent otherwise applicable to the plan, but are not subject
to the ERISA reporting and disclosure, participation,
vesting, funding, and enforcement requirements that apply to
the eligible retirement plan. An eligible retirement plan is
a qualified plan (sec. 401(a)), tax- sheltered annuity (sec.
403(b)), or a governmental section 457 plan.
Tax-free IRA withdrawals for charitable purposes
The bill provides an exclusion from gross income for
qualified charitable distributions from an IRA: (1) to an
organization to which deductible contributions can be made;
(2) to a charitable remainder annuity trust or charitable
remainder unitrust; (3) to a pooled income fund (as defined
in sec. 642(c)(5)); or (4) for the issuance of a charitable
gift annuity. The exclusion applies with respect to
distributions described in (2), (3), or (4) only if no person
holds an income interest in the trust, fund, or annuity
attributable to such distributions other than the IRA owner,
his or her spouse, or a charitable organization.
In determining the character of distributions from a
charitable remainder annuity trust or a charitable remainder
unitrust to which a qualified charitable distribution from an
IRA is made, the charitable remainder trust is required to
treat as ordinary income the portion of the distribution from
the IRA to the trust which would have been includible in
income but for the provision, and is required to treat any
remaining portion of the distribution as corpus. Similarly,
in determining the amount includible in gross income by
reason of a payment from a charitable gift annuity purchased
with a qualified charitable distribution from an IRA, the
taxpayer is not permitted to treat the portion of the
distribution from the IRA that would have been taxable but
for the provision and which is used to purchase the annuity
as an investment in the annuity contract.
A qualified charitable distribution is any distribution
from an IRA which (1) is made after age 70\1/2\ of the
account holder, (2) qualifies as a charitable contribution
(within the meaning of sec. 170(c)), and (3) is made directly
to the organization or to a charitable remainder annuity
trust, charitable remainder unitrust, pooled income fund, or
charitable gift annuity (as described above). 3 A
taxpayer is not permitted to claim a charitable contribution
deduction for amounts transferred from his or her IRA to a
charity or to a trust, fund, or annuity that, because of the
provision, are excluded from the taxpayer's income.
Conversely, if the amounts transferred would otherwise be
nontaxable, e.g., a qualified distribution from a Roth IRA,
the regularly applicable deduction rules would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ It is intended that, in the case of transfer to a trust,
fund, or annuity, the full amount distributed from an IRA
will meet the definition of a qualified charitable
distribution if the charitable organization's interest in the
distribution would qualify as a charitable contribution under
section 170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date
The provisions are generally effective for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000. The provision relating to
deemed IRAs under employer plans is effective for plan years
beginning after December 31, 2001.
Conference Agreement
Increase in annual contribution limits
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
Additional catch-up contributions
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, with
modifications. Under the conference agreement, the maximum
catch-up amount is phased in over the same period as the
increase in the IRA contribution limit. The maximum catch-up
contribution is $500 in 2001, $1,000 in 2002, and $1,500 in
2003. The $1,500 amount is indexed for inflation beginning
after 2003 (when the indexing of the $5,000 basic
contribution limit begins).
Increase in AGI limits for deductible IRA contributions
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
Roth IRAs
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
Deemed IRAs under employer plans
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment. As
under the Senate amendment, if an eligible retirement plan
permits employees to make voluntary employee contributions to
a separate account or annuity that (1) is established under
the plan, and (2) meets the requirements applicable to either
traditional IRAs or Roth IRAs, then the separate account or
annuity is deemed to be a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA, as
applicable, for all purposes of the Code. For example, the
IRA reporting requirements apply. The deemed IRA, and
contributions thereto, are not subject to the Code rules
pertaining to the eligible retirement plan. In addition, the
deemed IRA, and contributions thereto, are not taken into
account in applying such rules to any other contributions
under the plan. The deemed IRA, and contributions thereto,
are subject to the exclusive benefit and fiduciary rules of
ERISA to the extent otherwise applicable to the plan, but are
not subject to the ERISA reporting and disclosure,
participation, vesting, funding, and enforcement requirements
that apply to the eligible retirement plan. Except as
otherwise specified, the provision does not affect the
treatment of the deemed IRA as part of the qualified plan.
Tax-free IRA withdrawals for charitable purposes
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, with
the modification that the tax-free treatment is available
only for a distribution made to an organization to which
charitable contributions (as defined in sec. 170(c)) can be
made, and not for distributions to charitable remainder
trusts, pooled income funds, or for the issuance of
charitable gift annuities. The conferees clarify that the
exclusion does not apply unless the distribution meets the
requirements generally applicable to deductible contributions
(other than the percentage limits on such deductions). Thus,
for example, the substantiation rules and the rule limiting
the deductible amount of a contribution to the excess, if
any, of the value of the contribution over the value of any
benefit received by the donor, would apply. It is intended
that the Secretary will issue such rules as are necessary to
apply to distributions made to organizations pursuant to the
provision.
The conference agreement also clarifies that amounts that
would have been includible in gross income but for the
provision are not deductible in any year. In addition, such
amounts are not taken into account in determining the
deductible amount for any year.
Except as provided in the provision, a distribution under
the provision is treated the same as other IRA distributions.
Thus, for example, the distribution is taken into account in
determining whether the minimum distribution requirements are
satisfied.
Effective date
The provisions are generally effective for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000. The provision relating to
deemed IRAs under employer plans is effective for plan years
beginning after December 31, 2001.
Subtitle B: Expanding Coverage (secs. 411-418 of the bill)
A. Increase in Benefit and Contribution Limits (sec. 201 of the House
bill, sec. 201 of the Senate amendment, and secs. 401(a)(17), 402(g),
408(p), 415, and 457 of the Code)
Present Law
In general
Under present law, limits apply to contributions and
benefits under qualified plans (sec. 415), the amount of
compensation that may be taken into account under a plan for
determining benefits (sec. 401(a)(17)), the maximum amount of
elective deferrals that an individual may make to a salary
reduction plan or tax sheltered annuity (sec. 402(g)), and
deferrals under an eligible deferred compensation plan of a
tax-exempt organization or a State or local government (sec.
457).
Limitations on contributions and benefits
Under present law, the limits on contributions and benefits
under qualified plans are based on the type of plan. Under a
defined contribution plan, the qualification rules limit the
annual additions to the plan with respect to each plan
participant to the lesser of (1) 25 percent of compensation
or (2) $30,000 (for 2000). Annual additions are the sum of
employer contributions, employee contributions, and
forfeitures with respect to an individual under all defined
contribution plans of the same employer. The $30,000 limit is
indexed for inflation in $5,000 increments.
Under a defined benefit plan, the maximum annual benefit
payable at retirement is generally the lesser of (1) 100
percent of average compensation, or (2) $135,000 (for 2000).
The dollar limit is adjusted for inflation in $5,000
increments.
Under present law, in general, the dollar limit on annual
benefits is reduced if benefits under the plan begin before
the social security retirement age (currently, age 65) and
increased if benefits begin after social security retirement
age.
Compensation limitation
Under present law, the annual compensation of each
participant that may be taken into account for purposes of
determining contributions and benefits under a plan, applying
the deduction rules, and for nondiscrimination testing
purposes is limited to $170,000 (for 2000). The compensation
limit is indexed for inflation in $10,000 increments.
Elective deferral limitations
Under present law, under certain salary reduction
arrangements, an employee may elect to have the employer make
payments as contributions to a plan on behalf of the
employee, or to the employee directly in cash. Contributions
made at the election of the employee are called elective
deferrals.
The maximum annual amount of elective deferrals that an
individual may make to a qualified cash or deferred
arrangement (a ``section 401(k) plan''), a tax-sheltered
annuity (``section 403(b) annuity'') or a salary reduction
simplified employee pension plan
[[Page 24451]]
(``SEP'') is $10,500 (for 2000). The maximum annual amount of
elective deferrals that an individual may make to a SIMPLE
plan is $6,000. These limits are indexed for inflation in
$500 increments.
Section 457 plans
The maximum annual deferral under a deferred compensation
plan of a State or local government or a tax-exempt
organization (a ``section 457 plan'') is the lesser of (1)
$8,000 (for 2000) or (2) 33\1/2\ percent of compensation. The
$8,000 dollar limit is indexed for inflation in $500
increments. Under a special catch-up rule, the section 457
plan may provide that, for one or more of the participant's
last 3 years before retirement, the otherwise applicable
limit is increased to the lesser of (1) $15,000 or (2) the
sum of the otherwise applicable limit for the year plus the
amount by which the limit applicable in preceding years of
participation exceeded the deferrals for that year.
House Bill
Limits on contributions and benefits
The House bill increases the $30,000 annual addition limit
for defined contribution plans to $40,000. This amount is
indexed for inflation in $1,000 increments.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The 25 percent of compensation limitation is increased to
100 percent of compensation under another provision of the
House bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House bill increases the $135,000 annual benefit limit
under a defined benefit plan to $160,000. The dollar limit is
reduced for benefit commencement before age 62 and increased
for benefit commencement after age 65.
Compensation limitation
The House bill increases the limit on compensation that may
be taken into account under a plan to $200,000. This amount
is indexed for inflation in $5,000 increments.
Elective deferral limitations
The House bill increases the dollar limit on annual
elective deferrals under section 401(k) plans, section 403(b)
annuities and salary reduction SEPs to $11,000 in 2001, and
in $1,000 annual increments thereafter until the limits reach
$15,000 in 2005. The $15,000 limit is indexed for inflation
in $500 increments beginning in 2006. Beginning in 2001, the
House bill increases the maximum annual elective deferrals
that may be made to a SIMPLE plan in $1,000 annual increments
until the limit reaches $10,000 in 2004. The $10,000 limit is
indexed for inflation in $500 increments beginning in 2005.
Section 457 plans
The House bill increases the dollar limit on deferrals
under a section 457 plan to conform to the elective deferral
limitation. Thus, the limit is $11,000 in 2001, and is
increased in $1,000 annual increments thereafter until the
limit reaches $15,000 in 2005. The $15,000 limit is indexed
for inflation in $500 increments beginning in 2006. The limit
is twice the otherwise applicable dollar limit in the three
years prior to retirement.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Another provision of the House bill increases the 33\1/3\
percentage of compensation limit to 100 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date
The House bill is effective for years beginning after
December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except
with respect to the provision relating to the defined
contribution plan dollar limit. The Senate amendment retains
the present-law $30,000 limit, and indexes the limit for
inflation in $1,000 increments.
Effective date.--Same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill. In
adopting rules regarding the application of the increase in
the defined benefit plan limits under the bill, the conferees
intend that the Secretary will apply rules similar to those
adopted in Notice 99-44 regarding benefit increases due to
the repeal of the combined plan limit under former section
415(e). Thus, for example, a defined benefit plan could
provide for benefit increases to reflect the provisions of
the bill for a current or former employee who has commenced
benefits under the plan prior to the effective date of the
bill if the employee or former employee has an accrued
benefit under the plan (other than an accrued benefit
resulting from a benefit increase solely as a result of the
increases in the section 415 limits under the bill). As under
the notice, the maximum amount of permitted increase is
generally the amount that could have been provided had the
provisions of the bill been in effect at the time of the
commencement of benefit. In no case can benefits reflect
increases that could not be paid prior to the effective date
because of the limits in effect under present law. In
addition, in no case can plan amendments providing increased
benefits under the relevant provision of the bill be
effective prior to the effective date of the provision.
B. Plan Loans for S Corporation Shareholders, Partners, and Sole
Proprietors (sec. 202 of the House bill, sec. 202 of the Senate
amendment, and sec. 4975 of the Code)
Present Law
The Internal Revenue Code prohibits certain transactions
(``prohibited transactions'') between a qualified plan and a
disqualified person in order to prevent persons with a close
relationship to the qualified plan from using that
relationship to the detriment of plan participants and
beneficiaries.6 Certain types of transactions are
exempted from the prohibited transaction rules, including
loans from the plan to plan participants, if certain
requirements are satisfied. In addition, the Secretary of
Labor can grant an administrative exemption from the
prohibited transaction rules if she finds the exemption is
administratively feasible, in the interest of the plan and
plan participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the
rights of participants and beneficiaries of the plan.
Pursuant to this exemption process, the Secretary of Labor
grants exemptions both with respect to specific transactions
and classes of transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended (``ERISA''), also contains prohibited
transaction rules. The Code and ERISA provisions are
substantially similar, although not identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statutory exemptions to the prohibited transaction
rules do not apply to certain transactions in which the plan
makes a loan to an owner-employee.7 Loans to
participants other than owner-employees are permitted if
loans are available to all participants on a reasonably
equivalent basis, are not made available to highly
compensated employees, are made in accordance with specific
provisions in the plan, bear a reasonable rate of interest,
and are adequately secured. In addition, the Code places
limits on the amount of loans and the repayment terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Certain transactions involving a plan and S corporation
shareholders are permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the prohibited transaction rules, an owner-
employee means (1) a sole proprietor, (2) a partner who owns
more than 10 percent of either the capital interest or the
profits interest in the partnership, (3) an employee or
officer of an S corporation who owns more than 5 percent of
the outstanding stock of the corporation, and (4) the owner
of an individual retirement arrangement (``IRA''). The term
owner-employee also includes certain family members of an
owner-employee and certain corporations owned by an owner-
employee.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, a two-tier excise tax is
imposed on disqualified persons who engage in a prohibited
transaction. The first level tax is equal to 15 percent of
the amount involved in the transaction. The second level tax
is imposed if the prohibited transaction is not corrected
within a certain period, and is equal to 100 percent of the
amount involved.
House Bill
The House bill generally eliminates the special present-law
rules relating to plan loans made to an owner-employee (other
than the owner of an IRA). Thus, the general statutory
exemption applies to such transactions. Present law continues
to apply with respect to IRAs.
Effective date.--The House bill is effective with respect
to loans made after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House
bill.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Senate amendment also amends the corresponding
provisions of ERISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
Effective date.--The conference agreement follows the
Senate amendment. Thus, as under the Senate amendment, a loan
that is a prohibited transaction solely because of the
present-law restriction would cease to be a prohibited
transaction on January 1, 2000. However, the loan would
continue to be a prohibited transaction prior to January 1,
2000.
C. Modification of Top-Heavy Rules (sec. 203 of the House bill, sec.
203 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 416 of the Code)
Present Law
In general
Under present law, additional qualification requirements
apply to plans that primarily benefit an employer's key
employees (``top-heavy plans''). These additional
requirements provide (1) more rapid vesting for plan
participants who are non-key employees and (2) minimum
nonintegrated employer contributions or benefits for plan
participants who are non-key employees.
Definition of top-heavy plan
In general, a top-heavy plan is a plan under which more
than 60 percent of the contributions or benefits are provided
to key employees.
For purposes of determining whether a plan is a top-heavy
plan, benefits derived both from employer and employee
contributions, including employee elective contributions, are
taken into account. In addition, the accrued benefit of a
participant in a defined benefit plan and the account balance
of a participant in a defined contribution plan includes any
amount distributed within the 5-year period ending on the
determination date.
[[Page 24452]]
An individual's accrued benefit or account balance is not
taken into account in determining whether a plan is top-heavy
if the individual has not performed services for the employer
during the 5-year period ending on the determination date.
SIMPLE plans are not subject to the top-heavy rules.
Definition of key employee
A key employee is an employee who, during the plan year
containing the determination date for the plan year in
question or any of the 4 preceding plan years, is (1) an
officer earning over one-half of the defined benefit plan
dollar limitation of section 415 ($67,500 for 2000), (2) a 5-
percent owner of the employer, (3) a 1-percent owner of the
employer earning over $150,000, or (4) one of the 10
employees earning more than the defined contribution plan
dollar limit ($30,000 for 2000) with the largest ownership
interests in the employer. A family ownership attribution
rule applies to the determination of 1-percent owner status,
5-percent owner status, and largest ownership interest. Under
this attribution rule, an individual is treated as owning
stock owned by the individual's spouse, children,
grandchildren, or parents.
Minimum benefit for non-key employees
A minimum benefit generally must be provided to all non-key
employees in a top-heavy plan. In general, a top-heavy
defined benefit plan must provide a minimum benefit equal to
the lesser of (1) 2 percent of compensation multiplied by the
employee's years of service, or (2) 20 percent of
compensation. A top-heavy defined contribution plan must
provide a minimum annual contribution equal to the lesser of
(1) 3 percent of compensation, or (2) the percentage of
compensation at which contributions were made for key
employees (including employee elective contributions made by
key employees and employer matching contributions).
For purposes of the minimum benefit rules, only benefits
derived from employer contributions (other than amounts
employees have elected to defer) to the plan are taken into
account, and an employee's social security benefits are
disregarded (i.e., the minimum benefit is nonintegrated).
Employer matching contributions may be used to satisfy the
minimum contribution requirement; however, in such a case the
contributions are not treated as matching contributions for
purposes of applying the special nondiscrimination
requirements applicable to employee elective contributions
and matching contributions under sections 401(k) and (m).
Thus, such contributions would have to meet the general
nondiscrimination test of section 401(a)(4).9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Tres. Reg. sec. 1.416-1 Q&A M-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-heavy vesting
Benefits under a top-heavy plan must vest at least as
rapidly as under one of the following schedules: (1) 3-year
cliff vesting, which provides for 100 percent vesting after 3
years of service; and (2) 2-6 year graded vesting, which
provides for 20 percent vesting after 2 years of service, and
20 percent more each year thereafter so that a participant is
fully vested after 6 years of service.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Benefits under a plan that is not top heavy must vest at
least as rapidly as under one of the following schedules: (1)
5-year cliff vesting; and (2) 3-7 year graded vesting, which
provides for 20 percent vesting after 3 years of service and
20 percent more each year thereafter so that a participant is
fully vested after 7 years of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualified cash or deferred arrangements
Under a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (a ``section
401(k) plan''), an employee may elect to have the employer
make payments as contributions to a qualified plan on behalf
of the employee, or to the employee directly in cash.
Contributions made at the election of the employee are called
elective deferrals. A special nondiscrimination test applies
to elective deferrals under cash or deferred arrangements,
which compares the elective deferrals of highly compensated
employees with elective deferrals of nonhighly compensated
employees. (This test is called the actual deferral
percentage test or the ``ADP'' test). Employer matching
contributions under qualified defined contribution plans are
also subject to a similar nondiscrimination test. (This test
is called the actual contribution percentage test or the
``ACP'' test.)
Under a design-based safe harbor, a cash or deferred
arrangement is deemed to satisfy the ADP test if the plan
satisfies one of two contribution requirements and satisfies
a notice requirement.
House Bill
Definition of top-heavy plan
The provision provides that a plan consisting of a cash-or-
deferred arrangement that satisfies the design-based safe
harbor for such plans and matching contributions that satisfy
the safe harbor rule for such contributions is not a top-
heavy plan. Matching or nonelective contributions provided
under such a plan may be taken into account in satisfying the
minimum contribution requirements applicable to top-heavy
plans.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This provision is not intended to preclude the use of
nonelective contributions that are used to satisfy the safe
harbor rules from being used to satisfy other qualified
retirement plan nondiscrimination rules, including those
involving cross-testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether a plan is top-heavy, the provision
provides that distributions during the year ending on the
date the top-heavy determination is being made are taken into
account; however, the present-law 5-year rule applies with
respect to in-service distributions. Similarly, the provision
provides that an individual's accrued benefit or account
balance is not taken into account if the individual has not
performed services for the employer during the 1-year period
ending on the date the top-heavy determination is being made.
Definition of key employee
The provision (1) provides that an employee is not
considered a key employee by reason of officer status unless
the employee earns more than $150,000 in compensation for the
year, and (2) repeals the top-10 owner key employee category.
The provision repeals the 4-year lookback rule for
determining key employee status and provides that an employee
is a key employee only if he or she is a key employee during
the plan year containing the determination date for the plan
year in question.
The family ownership attribution rule no longer applies in
determining whether an individual is a 5-percent owner of the
employer for purposes of the top-heavy rules only. The family
ownership attribution rule continues to apply to other
provisions that cross reference the top-heavy rules, such as
the definition of highly compensated employee and the
definition of 1-percent owner under the top-heavy rules.
Minimum benefit for non-key employees
Under the provision, matching contributions are taken into
account in determining whether the minimum benefit
requirement has been satisfied.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Thus, this provision overrides the provision in Treasury
regulations that, if matching contributions are used to
satisfy the minimum benefit requirement, then they are not
treated as matching contributions for purposes of the section
401(m) nondiscrimination rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provision provides that, in determining the minimum
benefit required under a defined benefit plan, a year of
service does not include any year in which no employee
benefits under the plan (as determined under sec. 410).
Effective date
The provision is effective for years beginning after
December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment follows the House bill, with the
following modifications.
Under the Senate amendment, an employee is considered a key
employee if, during the prior year, the employee was (1) an
officer with compensation in excess of $85,000 (for 2000),
(2) a 5-percent owner, or (3) a 1-percent owner with
compensation in excess of $150,000. The present-law limits on
the number of officers treated as key employees under (1)
continue to apply. An employee who was not an employee in the
preceding plan year, or who was an employee only for part of
the year, is treated as a key employee if it can be
reasonably anticipated that the employee will meet the
definition of a key employee for current plan year.
The Senate amendment provides that, in determining the
minimum benefit required under a defined benefit plan, a year
of service does not include any year in which no key employee
or former key employee benefits under the plan (as determined
under sec. 410).
Effective date.--The Senate amendment is effective for
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill, with the
following modifications. Under the conference agreement, an
employee is a key employee if, during the plan year
containing the determination date for the plan year in
question, the employee was (1) an officer with compensation
in excess of $115,000 (indexed for inflation after 2001), (2)
a 5-percent owner, or (3) a 1-percent owner with compensation
in excess of $150,000. The present-law limits on the number
of officers treated as key employees under (1) continue to
apply. As under the House bill, the family ownership
attribution rule no longer applies in determining whether an
individual is a 5-percent owner of the employer for purposes
of the top-heavy rules only. The family ownership attribution
rule continues to apply to other provisions that cross
reference the top-heavy rules, such as the definition of
highly compensated employee and the definition of 1-percent
owner under the top-heavy rules.
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment in
providing that, in determining the minimum benefit required
under a defined benefit plan, a year of service does not
include any year in which no key employee or former key
employee benefits under the plan (as determined under sec.
410).
Effective date.--The conference agreement is effective for
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
D. Elective Deferrals Not Taken into Account for Purposes of Deduction
Limits (sec. 204 of the House bill, sec. 204 of the Senate amendment,
and sec. 404 of the Code)
Present Law
Employer contributions to one or more qualified retirement
plans are deductible
[[Page 24453]]
subject to certain limits. In general, the deduction limit
depends on the kind of plan.
In the case of a defined benefit pension plan or a money
purchase pension plan, the employer generally may deduct the
amount necessary to satisfy the minimum funding cost of the
plan for the year. If a defined benefit pension plan has more
than 100 participants, the maximum amount deductible is at
least equal to the plan's unfunded current liabilities.
In the case of a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan, the
employer generally may deduct an amount equal to 15 percent
of compensation of the employees covered by the plan for the
year.
If an employer sponsors both a defined benefit pension plan
and a defined contribution plan that covers some of the same
employees (or a money purchase pension plan and another kind
of defined contribution plan), the total deduction for all
plans for a plan year generally is limited to the greater of
(1) 25 percent of compensation or (2) the contribution
necessary to meet the minimum funding requirements of the
defined benefit pension plan for the year (or the amount of
the plan's unfunded current liabilities, in the case of a
plan with more than 100 participants).
For purposes of the deduction limits, employee elective
deferral contributions to a section 401(k) plan are treated
as employer contributions and, thus, are subject to the
generally applicable deduction limits.
Subject to certain exceptions, nondeductible contributions
are subject to a 10-percent excise tax.
House Bill
Under the House bill, elective deferral contributions are
not subject to the deduction limits, and the application of a
deduction limitation to any other employer contribution to a
qualified retirement plan does not take into account elective
deferral contributions.
Effective date.--The House bill is effective for years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
E. Repeal of Coordination Requirements for Deferred Compensation Plans
of State and Local Governments and Tax-Exempt Organizations (sec. 205
of the House bill, sec. 205 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 457 of
the Code)
Present Law
Compensation deferred under an eligible deferred
compensation plan of a tax-exempt or State and local
government employer (a ``section 457 plan'') is not
includible in gross income until paid or made available. In
general, the maximum permitted annual deferral under such a
plan is the lesser of (1) $8,000 (in 2000) or (2) 33\1/3\
percent of compensation. The $8,000 limit is indexed for
inflation in $500 increments.
The $8,000 limit (as modified under the catch-up rule),
applies to all deferrals under all section 457 plans in which
the individual participates. In addition, in applying the
$8,000 limit, contributions under a tax-sheltered annuity
(``section 403(b) annuity''), elective deferrals under a
qualified cash or deferred arrangement (``section 401(k)
plan''), salary reduction contributions under a simplified
employee pension plan (``SEP''), and contributions under a
SIMPLE plan are taken into account. Further, the amount
deferred under a section 457 plan is taken into account in
applying a special catch-up rule for section 403(b)
annuities.
House Bill
The House bill repeals the rules coordinating the section
457 dollar limit with contributions under other types of
plans.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The limits on deferrals under a section 457 plan are
modified under other provisions of the House bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date.--The House bill is effective for years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
F. Eliminate IRS User Fees for Certain Requests Regarding Employer
Plans (sec. 206 of the House bill)
Present Law
An employer that maintains a retirement plan for the
benefit of its employees may request from the Internal
Revenue Service (``IRS'') a determination as to whether the
form of the plan satisfies the requirements applicable to
tax-qualified plans (sec. 401(a)). In order to obtain a
determination letter on the qualified status of the plan, the
employer must pay a user fee. The Secretary determines the
user fee to be made for various types of requests, subject to
statutory minimum requirements for average fees based on the
category of the request. The user fee for a employee plan
determination letter request may range from $125 to $1,250,
depending upon the scope of the request and the type and
format of the plan.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Authorization for the user fees was originally enacted
in section 10511 of the Revenue Act of 1987 (Pub. L. No. 100-
203, December 22, 1987). The authorization was extended
through September 30, 2003, by Public Law Number 104-117 (An
Act to provide that members of the Armed Forces preforming
services for the peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, and Macedonia shall be entitled to tax
benefits in the same manner as if such services were
performed in a combat zone, and for other purposes (March 20,
1996)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, a qualified plan which does not meet the
qualification requirements as a result of a disqualifying
provision may be amended retroactively to comply with such
requirements if the necessary amendments are adopted within
the remedial amendment period. The remedial amendment period
with respect to plan amendments needed to reflect changes in
the law generally ends by the due date for the employer's tax
return for the taxable year in which the change in the law
occurs. The Secretary is authorized to extend the otherwise
applicable remedial amendment period. Pursuant to this
authority, the Secretary has provided extended remedial
amendment periods with respect to recent legislation
affecting qualified plans.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., Rev. Proc. 99-23, 1999-16 IRB 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
Under the House bill, a small employer (100 or fewer
employees) is not required to pay a user fee for any
determination letter request with respect to the qualified
status of a retirement plan that the employer maintains, if
the request is made within the first 5 plan years of the
plan. The House bill applies only to requests by employers
for determination letters concerning the qualified retirement
plans they maintain. Therefore, a sponsor of a prototype plan
is required to pay a user fee for a request for a
notification letter, opinion letter, or similar ruling. A
small employer that adopts a prototype plan, however, is not
required to pay a user fee for a determination letter request
with respect to the employer's plan.
Effective date.--The House bill is effective for
determination letter requests made after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill, with the
following modification. Under the conference agreement, a
small employer also is not required to pay a user fee for a
determination letter request made prior to the end of a
remedial amendment period beginning within the first 5 plan
years of the plan. In addition, determination letter requests
for which user fees are not required under the conference
agreement are not taken into account in determining average
user fees.
F. Deduction Limits (sec. 207 of the House bill, sec. 206 of the Senate
amendment, and sec. 404 of the Code)
Present Law
Employer contributions to one or more qualified retirement
plans are deductible subject to certain limits. In general,
the deduction limit depends on the kind of plan. Subject to
certain exceptions, nondeductible contributions are subject
to a 10-percent excise tax.
In the case of a defined benefit pension plan or a money
purchase pension plan, the employer generally may deduct the
amount necessary to satisfy the minimum funding cost of the
plan for the year. If a defined benefit pension plan has more
than 100 participants, the maximum amount deductible is at
least equal to the plan's unfunded current liabilities.
In some cases, the amount of deductible contributions is
limited by compensation. In the case of a profit-sharing or
stock bonus plan, the employer generally may deduct an amount
equal to 15 percent of compensation of the employees covered
by the plan for the year.
If an employer sponsors both a defined benefit pension plan
and a defined contribution plan that covers some of the same
employees (or a money purchase pension plan and another kind
of defined contribution plan), the total deduction for all
plans for a plan year generally is limited to the greater of
(1) 25 percent of compensation or (2) the contribution
necessary to meet the minimum funding requirements of the
defined benefit pension plan for the year (or the amount of
the plan's unfunded current liabilities, in the case of a
plan with more than 100 participants).
In the case of an employee stock ownership plan (``ESOP''),
principal payments on a loan used to acquire qualifying
employer securities are deductible up to 25 percent of
compensation.
For purposes of the deduction limits, employee elective
deferral contributions to a qualified cash or deferred
arrangement (``section 401(k) plan'') are treated as employer
contributions and, thus, are subject to the generally
applicable deduction limits.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Another provision in the House bill provides that
elective deferrals are not subject to the deduction limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the deduction rules, compensation generally
includes only taxable compensation, and thus does not include
salary reduction amounts, such as elective deferrals under a
section 401(k) plan or a tax-sheltered annuity (``section
403(b) annuity''),
[[Page 24454]]
elective contributions under a deferred compensation plan of
a tax-exempt organization or a State or local government
(``section 457 plan''), and salary reduction contributions
under a section 125 cafeteria plan. For purposes of the
contribution limits under section 415, compensation does
include such salary reduction amounts.
House Bill
Under the House bill, the definition of compensation for
purposes of the deduction rules includes salary reduction
amounts treated as compensation under section 415. In
addition, the annual limitation on the amount of deductible
contributions to a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan is
increased from 15 percent to 20 percent of compensation of
the employees covered by the plan for the year.
Effective date.--The House bill is effective for years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
Under the Senate amendment, the definition of compensation
for purposes of the deduction rules includes salary reduction
amounts treated as compensation under section 415. In
addition, the annual limitation on the amount of deductible
contributions to a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan is
increased from 15 percent to 25 percent of compensation of
the employees covered by the plan for the year. Also, the
Senate amendment provides that, except to the extent provided
in regulations, a money purchase pension plan is treated like
a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan for purposes of the
deduction rules.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment. The
conferees intend that the Treasury regulations authorized by
the conference agreement will address the need for an
appropriate increase of the annual limitation on the amount
of deductible contributions to a money purchase pension plan
by an amount that equals the minimum funding requirement
attributable to the prior plan year, but only to the extent
that such amount was not deductible for the prior taxable
year because the amount was not contributed prior to the due
date of the employer's federal income tax return for the
prior taxable year (even though the amount was contributed
within 8\1/2\ months after the end of the prior plan year and
therefore satisfied the minimum funding requirement).
H. Option To Treat Elective Deferrals as After-Tax Contributions (sec.
208 of the House bill, sec. 207 of the Senate amendment, and new sec.
402A of the Code)
Present Law
A qualified cash or deferred arrangement (``section 401(k)
plan'') or a tax-sheltered annuity (``section 403(b)
annuity'') may permit a participant to elect to have the
employer make payments as contributions to the plan or to the
participant directly in cash. Contributions made to the plan
at the election of a participant are elective deferrals.
Elective deferrals must be nonforfeitable and are subject to
an annual dollar limitation (sec. 402(g)) 17 and
distribution restrictions. In addition, elective deferrals
under a section 401(k) plan are subject to special
nondiscrimination rules. Elective deferrals that do not
exceed the annual dollar limitation (and earnings
attributable thereto) are not includible in a participant's
gross income until distributed from the plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The limit on elective deferrals is $10,500 for 2000.
This limit is increased under another provision of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elective deferrals for a taxable year that exceed the
annual dollar limitation (``excess deferrals'') are
includible in gross income for the taxable year. If an
employee makes elective deferrals under a plan (or plans) of
a single employer that exceed the annual dollar limitation
(``excess deferrals''), then the plan may provide for the
distribution of the excess deferrals, with earnings thereon.
If the excess deferrals are made to more than one plan of
unrelated employers, then the plan may permit the individual
to allocate excess deferrals among the various plans, no
later than the March 1 (April 15 under the applicable
regulations) following the end of the taxable year. If excess
deferrals are distributed not later than April 15 following
the end of the taxable year, along with earnings attributable
to the excess deferrals, then the excess deferrals are not
again includible in income when distributed. The earnings are
includible in income in the year distributed. If excess
deferrals (and income thereon) are not distributed by the
applicable April 15, then the excess deferrals (and income
thereon) are includible in income when received by the
participant. Thus, excess deferrals that are not distributed
by the applicable April 15th are taxable both in the taxable
year when the deferral was made and in the year the
participant receives a distribution of the excess deferral.
Individuals with adjusted gross income below certain levels
generally may make nondeductible contributions to a Roth IRA
and may convert a deductible or nondeductible IRA into a Roth
IRA. Amounts held in a Roth IRA that are withdrawn as a
qualified distribution are not includible in income, nor
subject to the additional 10-percent tax on early
withdrawals. A qualified distribution is a distribution that
(1) is made after the 5-taxable year period beginning with
the first taxable year for which the individual made a
contribution to a Roth IRA, and (2) is made after attainment
of age 59\1/2\, is made on account of death or disability, or
is a qualified special purpose distribution (i.e., for first-
time homebuyer expenses of up to $10,000). A distribution
from a Roth IRA that is not a qualified distribution is
includible in income to the extent attributable to earnings,
and is subject to the 10-percent tax on early withdrawals
(unless an exception applies).18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Early distributions of converted amounts may also
accelerate income inclusion of converted amounts that are
taxable under the 4-year rule applicable to 1998 conversions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
A section 401(k) plan or a section 403(b) annuity is
permitted to include a ``qualified plus contribution
program'' that permits a participant to elect to have all or
a portion of the participant's elective deferrals under the
plan treated as designated plus contributions. Designated
plus contributions are elective deferrals that the
participant designates as not excludable from the
participant's gross income.
The annual dollar limitation on a participant's designated
plus contributions is the section 402(g) annual limitation on
elective deferrals, reduced by the participant's elective
deferrals that the participant does not designate as
designated plus contributions. Designated plus contributions
are treated as any other elective deferral for purposes of
nonforfeitability requirements and distribution restrictions.
Under a section 401(k) plan, designated plus contributions
also are treated as any other elective deferral for purposes
of the special nondiscrimination requirements.
The plan is required to establish a separate account, and
maintain separate recordkeeping, for a participant's
designated plus contributions (and earnings allocable
thereto). A qualified distribution from a participant's
designated plus contributions account is not includible in
the participant's gross income. A qualified distribution is a
distribution that is made after the end of a specified
nonexclusion period and that is (1) made on or after the date
on which the participant attains age 59\1/2\, (2) made to a
beneficiary (or to the estate of the participant) on or after
the death of the participant, or (3) attributable to the
participant's being disabled.19 The nonexclusion
period is the 5-year-taxable period beginning with the
earlier of (1) the first taxable year for which the
participant made a designated plus contribution to any
designated plus contribution account established for the
participant under the plan, or (2) if the participant has
made a rollover contribution to the designated plus
contribution account that is the source of the distribution
from a designated plus contribution account established for
the participant under another plan, the first taxable year
for which the participant made a designated plus contribution
to the previously established account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ A qualified special purpose distribution, as defined
under the rules relating to Roth IRAs, does not qualify as a
tax-free distribution from a designated plus contributions
account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A distribution from a designated plus contributions account
that is a corrective distribution of an elective deferral
(and income allocable thereto) that exceeds the section
402(g) annual limit on elective deferrals is not a qualified
distribution.
A participant is permitted to roll over a distribution from
a designated plus contributions account only to another
designated plus contributions account or a Roth IRA of the
participant.
The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to require the
plan administrator of each section 401(k) plan or section
403(b) annuity that permits participants to make designated
plus contributions to make such returns and reports regarding
designated plus contributions to the Secretary, plan
participants and beneficiaries, and other persons that the
Secretary may designate.
Effective date.--The House bill is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except
that the Senate amendment refers to designated plus
contributions as ``Roth contributions.''
The Senate amendment also includes additional
clarifications in the legislative history. The Senate
amendment provides that it is intended that the Secretary
generally will not permit retroactive designations of
elective deferrals as Roth contributions. The Senate
amendment also clarifies that Roth contributions to a section
403(b) annuity are treated the same as other salary reduction
contributions to the annuity (except that Roth contributions
are includible in gross income). The Senate amendment
provides that it is intended that the Secretary will provide
ordering rules regarding the return of excess contributions
under the special nondiscrimination rules (pursuant to sec.
401(k)(8)) in the event a participant has made both Roth
contributions and regular elective
[[Page 24455]]
contributions. It is intended that such rules will generally
permit a plan to allow participants to designate which
contributions are returned first or to permit the plan to
specify which contributions are returned first.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment. The
conference agreement clarifies the treatment of excess
deferrals to the extent attributable to excess Roth
contributions. In general, the conference agreement conforms
the treatment of excess Roth contributions to the treatment
of excess deferrals attributable to non-Roth elective
deferrals. If excess Roth contributions (including earnings
thereon) are distributed no later than the April 15th
following the taxable year, then the Roth contributions are
not includible in gross income as a result of the
distribution, because such contributions are includible in
gross income when made. Earnings on such excess contributions
are treated the same as earnings on excess deferrals
distributed no later than April 15th, i.e., they are
includible in income when distributed. If excess Roth
contributions are not distributed no later than the
applicable April 15th, then such contributions (and earnings
thereon) are taxable when distributed. Thus, as is the case
with excess elective deferrals that are not distributed by
the applicable April 15th, the contributions are includible
in income in the year when made and again when distributed
from the plan. Earnings on such contributions are taxable
when received.
It is intended that the Secretary will provide ordering
rules regarding the return of excess deferrals in the event a
participant has made both Roth contributions and regular
contributions to the plan. It is intended that such rules
will generally permit a plan to allow participants to
designate which contributions are returned first or to permit
the plan to specify which contributions are returned first.
It is also intended that the Secretary will provide ordering
rules to determine the extent to which a distribution
consists of excess Roth contributions.
Subtitle C. Enhancing Fairness for Women (secs. 421-427 of the bill)
A. Additional Salary Reduction Catch-Up Contributions (sec. 301 of the
House bill, sec. 301 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 414 of the Code)
Present Law
Elective deferral limitations
Under present law, under certain salary reduction
arrangements, an employee may elect to have the employer make
payments as contributions to a plan on behalf of the
employee, or to the employee directly in cash. Contributions
made at the election of the employee are called elective
deferrals.
The maximum annual amount of elective deferrals that an
individual may make to a qualified cash or deferred
arrangement (a ``401(k) plan''), a tax-sheltered annuity
(``section 403(b) annuity'') or a salary reduction simplified
employee pension plan (``SEP'') is $10,500 (for 2000). The
maximum annual amount of elective deferrals that an
individual may make to a SIMPLE plan is $6,000. These limits
are indexed for inflation in $500 increments.
Section 457 plans
The maximum annual deferral under a deferred compensation
plan of a State or local government or a tax-exempt
organization (a ``section 457 plan'') is the lesser of (1)
$8,000 (for 2000) or (2) 33\1/3\ percent of compensation. The
$8,000 dollar limit is indexed for inflation in $500
increments. Under a special catch-up rule, the section 457
plan may provide that, for one or more of the participant's
last 3 years before retirement, the otherwise applicable
limit is increased to the lesser of (1) $15,000 or (2) the
sum of the otherwise applicable limit for the year plus the
amount by which the limit applicable in preceding years of
participation exceeded the deferrals for that year.
House Bill
The provision provides that the otherwise applicable dollar
limit on elective deferrals under a section 401(k) plan,
section 403(b) annuity, or SIMPLE, or deferrals under a
section 457 plan are increased for individuals who have
attained age 50 by the end of the year.20
Additional contributions are permitted to be made by an
individual who has attained age 50 before the end of the plan
year and with respect to whom no other elective deferrals may
otherwise be made to the plan for the year because of the
application of any limitation of the Code (e.g., the annual
limit on elective deferrals) or of the plan. Under the
provision, the additional amount of elective contributions
that are permitted to be made by an eligible individual
participating in such a plan is the lesser of (1) $5,000, or
(2) the participant's compensation for the year reduced by
any other elective deferrals of the participant for the
year.21 This $5,000 amount is indexed for
inflation in $500 increments in 2006 and thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Another provision of the bill increases the dollar limit
on elective deferrals under such arrangements.
\21\ In the case of a section 457 plan, this catch-up rule
does not apply during the participant's last 3 years before
retirement (in those years, the regularly applicable dollar
limit is doubled).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catch-up contributions made under the provision are not
subject to any other contribution limits and are not taken
into account in applying other contribution limits. Such
contributions are subject to applicable nondiscrimination
rules.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Another provision of the bill provides that elective
contributions are deductible without regard to the otherwise
applicable deduction limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An employer is permitted to make matching contributions
with respect to catch-up contributions. Any such matching
contributions are subject to the normally applicable rules.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The bill provides that individuals who have attained age 50
may be permitted to make additional catch-up elective
contributions to employer-sponsored retirement
plans.23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Another provision of the bill provides for catch-up
contributions to IRAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of employer-sponsored retirement plans, the
provision applies to elective deferrals under a section
401(k) plan, section 403(b) annuity, SIMPLE, or a section 457
plan. Additional contributions may be made by an individual
who has attained age 50 before the end of the plan year and
with respect to whom no other elective deferrals may
otherwise be made to the plan for the year because of the
application of any limitation of the Code (e.g., the annual
limit on elective deferrals) or of the plan.24
Under the bill, the additional amount of elective
contributions that could be made by an eligible individual
participating in such a plan is the lesser of (1) the
applicable percent of the maximum dollar amount of elective
deferrals otherwise excludable from the gross income of the
participant for the year (under sec. 402(g)) or (2) the
participant's compensation for the year reduced by any other
elective deferrals of the participant for the
year.25 The applicable percent is 10 percent in
2001, and increases by 10 percentage points until the
applicable percent is 50 in 2005 and thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ A plan is not required to permit participants to make
catch-up contributions.
\25\ In the case of a section 457 plans, this catch-up rule
does not apply during the participant's last 3 years before
retirement. Under another provision in the bill, in those
years, the regularly applicable dollar limit is doubled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catch-up contributions made under the bill are not subject
to any other contribution limits and are not taken into
account in applying other contribution limits. In addition,
such contributions are not subject to otherwise applicable
nondiscrimination rules or the top-heavy rules.
An employer is permitted to make matching contributions
with respect to catch-up contributions. Any such matching
contributions are subject to the normally applicable rules.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for
contributions in taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill, with a
modification. Although catch- up contributions are subject to
applicable nondiscrimination rules, a plan will not be
treated as failing to meet the applicable nondiscrimination
requirements under section 401(a)(4) with respect to
benefits, rights, and features if the plan allows all
eligible individuals participating in the plan to make the
same election with respect to catch-up contributions. For
purposes of this rule, all plans of related employers are
treated as a single plan.
B. Equitable Treatment for Contributions of Employees to Defined
Contribution Plans (sec. 302 of the House bill, sec. 302 of the Senate
amendment and secs. 413(b), 415, and 452 of the Code)
Present Law
Present law imposes limits on the contributions that may be
made to tax-favored retirement plans.
Defined contribution plans
In the case of a tax-qualified defined contribution plan,
the limit on annual additions that can be made to the plan on
behalf of an employee is the lesser of $30,000 (for 2000) or
25 percent of the employee's compensation (sec. 415(c)).
Annual additions include employer contributions, including
contributions made at the election of the employee (i.e.,
employee elective deferrals), after-tax employee
contributions, and any forfeitures allocated to the employee.
For this purpose, compensation means taxable compensation of
the employee, plus elective deferrals, and similar salary
reduction contributions. A separate limit applies to benefits
under a defined benefit plan.
For years before January 1, 2000, an overall limit applies
if an employee is a participant in both a defined
contribution plan and a defined benefit plan of the same
employer.
Tax-sheltered annuities
In the case of a tax-sheltered annuity (a ``section 403(b)
annuity''), the annual contribution generally cannot exceed
the lesser of the exclusion allowance or the section 415(c)
defined contribution limit. The exclusion allowance for a
year is equal to 20 percent of the employee's includible
compensation, multiplied by the employee's years of
[[Page 24456]]
service, minus excludable contributions for prior years under
qualified plans, tax-sheltered annuities or section 457 plans
of the employer.
In addition to this general rule, employees of nonprofit
educational institutions, hospitals, home health service
agencies, health and welfare service agencies, and churches
may elect application of one of several special rules that
increase the amount of the otherwise permitted contributions.
The election of a special rule is irrevocable; an employee
may not elect to have more than one special rule apply.
Under one special rule, in the year the employee separates
from service, the employee may elect to contribute up to the
exclusion allowance, without regard to the 25 percent of
compensation limit under section 415. Under this rule, the
exclusion allowance is determined by taking into account no
more than 10 years of service.
Under a second special rule, the employee may contribute up
to the lesser of: (1) the exclusion allowance; (2) 25 percent
of the participant's includible compensation; or (3) $15,000.
Under a third special rule, the employee may elect to
contribute up to the section 415(c) limit, without regard to
the exclusion allowance. If this option is elected, then
contributions to other plans of the employer are also taken
into account in applying the limit.
For purposes of determining the contribution limits
applicable to section 403(b) annuities, includible
compensation means the amount of compensation received from
the employer for the most recent period which may be counted
as a year of service under the exclusion allowance. In
addition, includible compensation includes elective deferrals
and similar salary reduction amounts.
Treasury regulations include provisions regarding
application of the exclusion allowance in cases where the
employee participates in a section 403(b) annuity and a
defined benefit plan. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
directed the Secretary of the Treasury to revise these
regulations, effective for years beginning after December 31,
1999, to reflect the repeal of the overall limit on
contributions and benefits.
Section 457 plans
Compensation deferred under an eligible deferred
compensation plan of a tax-exempt or State and local
governmental employer (a ``section 457 plan'') is not
includible in gross income until paid or made available. In
general, the maximum permitted annual deferral under such a
plan is the lesser of (1) $8,000 (in 2000) or (2) 33\1/3\
percent of compensation. The $8,000 limit is increased for
inflation in $500 increments.
House Bill
Increase in defined contribution plan limit
The bill increases the 25 percent of compensation
limitation on annual additions under a defined contribution
plan to 100 percent.26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Another provision of the bill increases the defined
contribution plan dollar limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conforming limits on tax-sheltered annuities
The bill repeals the exclusion allowance applicable to
contributions to tax-sheltered annuities. Thus, such
annuities are subject to the limits applicable to tax-
qualified plans.
The bill also directs the Secretary of the Treasury to
revise the regulations relating to the exclusion allowance
under section 403(b)(2) to render void the requirement that
contributions to a defined benefit plan be treated as
previously excluded amounts for purposes of the exclusion
allowance. For taxable years beginning after December 31,
1999, the regulatory provisions regarding the exclusion
allowance are to be applied as if the requirement that
contributions to a defined benefit plan be treated as
previously excluded amounts for purposes of the exclusion
allowance were void.
Section 457 plans
The bill increases the 33\1/3\ percent of compensation
limitation on deferrals under a section 457 plan to 100
percent of compensation.
Effective date
The provision generally is effective for years beginning
after December 31, 2000. The provision regarding the
regulations under section 403(b)(2) is effective on the date
of enactment.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
C. Faster Vesting of Employer Matching Contributions (Sec. 303 of the
House Bill, Sec. 303 of the Senate Amendment, and Sec. 411 of the Code)
Present Law
Under present law, a plan is not a qualified plan unless a
participant's employer-provided benefit vests at least as
rapidly as under one of two alternative minimum vesting
schedules. A plan satisfies the first schedule if a
participant acquires a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of
the participant's accrued benefit derived from employer
contributions upon the completion of 5 years of service. A
plan satisfies the second schedule if a participant has a
nonforfeitable right to at least 20 percent of the
participant's accrued benefit derived from employer
contributions after 3 years of service, 40 percent after 4
years of service, 60 percent after 5 years of service, 80
percent after 6 years of service, and 100 percent after 7
years of service.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The minimum vesting requirements are also contained in
Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended (``ERISA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
The bill applies faster vesting schedules to employer
matching contributions. Under the provision, employer
matching contributions must vest at least as rapidly as under
one of the following two alternative minimum vesting
schedules. A plan satisfies the first schedule if a
participant acquires a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of
employer matching contributions upon the completion of 3
years of service. A plan satisfies the second schedule if a
participant has a nonforfeitable right to 20 percent of
employer matching contributions for each year of service
beginning with the participant's second year of service and
ending with 100 percent after 6 years of service.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for
contributions for plan years beginning after December 31,
2000, with a delayed effective date for plans maintained
pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The provision
does not apply to any employee until the employee has an hour
of service after the effective date. In applying the new
vesting schedule, service before the effective date must be
taken into account.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
D. Simplify and Update the Minimum Distribution Rules (sec. 304 of the
House bill, sec. 304 of the Senate amendment, and secs. 401(a)19 and
457 of the Code)
Present Law
In general
Minimum distribution rules apply to all types of tax-
favored retirement vehicles, including qualified plans,
individual retirement arrangements (``IRAs''), tax-sheltered
annuities (``section 403(b) annuities''), and eligible
deferred compensation plans of tax-exempt and State and local
government employers (``section 457 plans''). In general,
under these rules, distribution of minimum benefits must
begin no later than the required beginning date. Minimum
distribution rules also apply to benefits payable with
respect to a plan participant who has died. Failure to comply
with the minimum distribution rules results in an excise tax
imposed on the individual plan participant equal to 50
percent of the required minimum distribution not distributed
for the year. The excise tax can be waived if the individual
establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the
shortfall in the amount distributed was due to reasonable
error and reasonable steps are being taken to remedy the
shortfall.
Distributions prior to the death of the individual
In the case of distributions prior to the death of the plan
participant, the minimum distribution rules are satisfied if
either (1) the participant's entire interest in the plan is
distributed by the required beginning date, or (2) the
participant's interest in the plan is to be distributed (in
accordance with regulations), beginning not later than the
required beginning date, over a permissible period. The
permissible periods are (1) the life of the participant, (2)
the lives of the participant and a designated beneficiary,
(3) the life expectancy of the participant, or (4) the joint
life and last survivor expectancy of the participant and a
designated beneficiary. In calculating minimum required
distributions, life expectancies of the participant and the
participant's spouse may be recomputed annually.
In the case of qualified plans, tax-sheltered annuities,
and section 457 plans, the required beginning date is the
April 1 of the calendar year following the later of (1) the
calendar year in which the employee attains age 70\1/2\ or
(2) the calendar year in which the employee retires. However,
in the case of a 5-percent owner of the employer,
distributions are required to begin no later than the April 1
of the calendar year following the year in which the 5-
percent owner attains age 70\1/2\. If commencement of
benefits is delayed beyond age 70\1/2\ from a defined benefit
plan, then the accrued benefit of the employee must be
actuarially increased to take into account the period after
age 70\1/2\ in which the employee was not receiving benefits
under the plan.28 In the case of distributions
from an IRA other than a Roth IRA, the required beginning
date is the April 1 following the calendar year in which the
IRA owner attains
[[Page 24457]]
age 70\1/2\. The pre-death minimum distribution rules do not
apply to Roth IRAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ State and local government plans and church plans are
not required to actuarially increase benefits that begin
after age 70\1/2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, under proposed regulations, in order to satisfy
the minimum distribution rules, annuity payments under a
defined benefit plan must be paid in periodic payments made
at intervals not longer than one year over a permissible
period, and must be nonincreasing, or increase only as a
result of the following: (1) cost-of-living adjustments; (2)
cash refunds of employee contributions; (3) benefit increases
under the plan; or (4) an adjustment due to death of the
employee's beneficiary. In the case of a defined contribution
plan, the minimum required distribution is determined by
dividing the employee's benefit by the applicable life
expectancy.
Distributions after the death of the plan participant
The minimum distribution rules also apply to distributions
to beneficiaries of deceased participants. In general, if the
participant dies after minimum distributions have begun, the
remaining interest must be distributed at least as rapidly as
under the minimum distribution method being used as of the
date of death. If the participant dies before minimum
distributions have begun, then the entire remaining interest
must generally be distributed within 5 years of the
participant's death. The 5-year rule does not apply if
distributions begin within 1 year of the participant's death
and are payable over the life of a designated beneficiary or
over the life expectancy of a designated beneficiary. A
surviving spouse beneficiary is not required to begin
distribution until the date the deceased participant would
have attained age 70\1/2\.
House Bill
Modification of post-death distribution rules
The provision applies the present-law rules applicable if
the participant dies before distribution of minimum benefits
has begun to all post-death distributions. Thus, in general,
if the employee dies before his or her entire interest has
been distributed, distribution of the remaining interest is
required to be made within 5 years of the date of death, or
begin within one year of the date of death and paid over the
life or life expectancy of a designated beneficiary. In the
case of a surviving spouse, distributions are not required to
begin until the April 1 of the calendar year following the
year in which the surviving spouse attains age 70\1/2\.
Minimum distributions that have already begun could be
recalculated under the new rule.
Reduction in excise tax
The bill reduces the excise tax on failures to satisfy the
minimum distribution rules to 10 percent of the amount that
was required to be distributed but was not distributed.
Treasury regulations
The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to update,
simplify, and finalize the regulations relating to the
minimum distribution rules and to reflect in such regulations
current life expectancies and to revise the required
distribution methods so that, under reasonable assumptions,
the amount of the required distribution does not decrease
over time. The regulations are to permit recalculation of
distributions for future years to reflect the change in the
regulations, and to permit the election of a new designated
beneficiary and method of calculating life expectancy. The
regulations are to be effective for years beginning after
December 31, 2000, and are to apply to individuals regardless
of whether minimum distributions had begun.
Effective date
In general, the provision is effective for years beginning
after December 31, 2000. The provision regarding Treasury
regulations is effective on the date of enactment.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except
that the Senate amendment provides that final Treasury
regulations are to be issued no later than December 31, 2001,
and the Senate amendment does not require that such
regulations are to be effective for years beginning after
December 31, 2000.
Effective date.--Same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
Effective date.--In general, the provision is effective for
years beginning after December 31, 2000. The provision
regarding Treasury regulations is effective on the date of
enactment. The conference agreement also provides a
transition rule with respect to the provision providing that
the required beginning date in the case of a surviving spouse
is no earlier than the April 1 of the calendar year after the
surviving spouse attains age 70\1/2\. The conference
agreement provides that, in the case of an individual who
died before the date of enactment and prior to his or her
required beginning date and whose beneficiary is the
surviving spouse, minimum distributions to the surviving
spouse are not required to begin earlier than the date
distributions would have been required to begin under present
law.
E. Clarification of Tax Treatment of Division of Section 457 Plan
Benefits Upon Divorce (sec. 305 of the House bill, sec. 305 of the
Senate amendment, and sec. 457 of the Code)
Present Law
Under present law, benefits provided under a qualified
retirement plan for a participant may not be assigned or
alienated to creditors of the participant, except in very
limited circumstances. One exception to the prohibition on
assignment or alienation rule is a qualified domestic
relations order (``QDRO''). A QDRO is a domestic relations
order that creates or recognizes a right of an alternate
payee to any plan benefit payable with respect to a
participant, and that meets certain procedural requirements.
Under present law, a distribution from a governmental plan
or a church plan is treated as made pursuant to a QDRO if it
is made pursuant to a domestic relations order that creates
or recognizes a right of an alternate payee to any plan
benefit payable with respect to a participant. Such
distributions are not required to meet the procedural
requirements that apply with respect to distributions from
qualified plans.
Under present law, amounts distributed from a qualified
plan generally are taxable to the participant in the year of
distribution. However, if amounts are distributed to the
spouse (or former spouse) of the participant by reason of a
QDRO, the benefits are taxable to the spouse (or former
spouse). Amounts distributed pursuant to a QDRO to an
alternate payee other than the spouse (or former spouse) are
taxable to the plan participant.
Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code provides rules for
deferral of compensation by an individual participating in an
eligible deferred compensation plan (``section 457 plan'') of
a tax-exempt or State and local government employer. The QDRO
rules do not apply to section 457 plans.
House Bill
The bill applies the taxation rules for qualified plan
distributions pursuant to a QDRO to distributions made
pursuant to a domestic relations order from a section 457
plan. In addition, a section 457 plan is not treated as
violating the restrictions on distributions from such plans
due to payments to an alternate payee under a QDRO. The
special rule applicable to governmental plans and church
plans applies for purposes of determining whether a
distribution is pursuant to a QDRO.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for transfers,
distributions, and payments made after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, with a
modification to the effective date.
Effective date.--The provision relating to taxation of
distributions is effective for transfers, distributions, and
payments made after December 31, 2000. The other provisions
are effective on January 1, 2001, except that, in the case of
a domestic relations order entered into before such date, the
plan administrator (1) shall treat such order as a QDRO if
the administrator is paying benefits pursuant to the order
and (2) may treat any other such order entered into before
the effective date as a QDRO.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill.
F. Modifications Relating to Hardship Withdrawals (sec. 306 of the
House bill, sec. 306 of the Senate amendment and secs. 401(k) and 402
of the Code)
Present Law
Elective deferrals under a qualified cash or deferred
arrangement (a ``section 401(k) plan'') may not be
distributable prior to the occurrence of one or more
specified events. One event upon which distribution is
permitted is the financial hardship of the employee.
Applicable Treasury regulations 29 provide that a
distribution is made on account of hardship only if the
distribution is made on account of an immediate and heavy
financial need of the employee and is necessary to satisfy
the heavy need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Treas. Reg. sec. 1.401(k)-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Treasury regulations provide a safe harbor under which
a distribution may be deemed necessary to satisfy an
immediate and heavy financial need. One requirement of this
safe harbor is that the employee be prohibited from making
elective contributions and employee contributions to the plan
and all other plans maintained by the employer for at least
12 months after receipt of the hardship distribution.
Under present law, hardship withdrawals of elective
deferrals from a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (or
403(b) annuity) are not eligible rollover distributions.
Other types of hardship distributions, e.g., employer
matching contributions distributed on account of hardship,
are eligible rollover distributions. Different withholding
rules apply to distributions that are eligible rollover
distributions and to distributions that are not eligible
rollover distributions. Eligible rollover distributions that
are not directly rolled over are subject to withholding at a
flat rate of 20-percent. Distributions that are not eligible
rollover distributions are subject to elective withholding.
Periodic distributions are subject to withholding as if the
distribution were wages; nonperiodic distributions are
subject to withholding at a rate of 10 percent. In either
case, the individual may elect not to have withholding apply.
[[Page 24458]]
House Bill
The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to revise the
applicable regulations to reduce from 12 months to 6 months
the period during which an employee must be prohibited from
making elective contributions and employee contributions in
order for a distribution to be deemed necessary to satisfy an
immediate and heavy financial need. The revised regulations
are to be effective for years beginning after December 31,
2000.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except
that the Senate amendment also provides that any hardship
distribution made pursuant to the terms of a plan is not an
eligible rollover distribution. Thus, such distributions may
not be rolled over, and are subject to the withholding rules
applicable to distributions that are not eligible rollover
distributions. The bill does not modify the rules under which
hardship distributions may be made. For example, as under
present law, hardship distributions of qualified employer
matching contributions may only be made under the rules
applicable to elective deferrals.
Effective date.--The provision directing the Secretary to
revise the rules relating to safe harbor hardship
distributions is effective on the date of enactment.
The provision providing that hardship distributions are not
eligible rollover distributions is effective for
distributions made after December 31, 2000. The Secretary has
the authority to issue transitional guidance with respect to
this provision to provide sufficient time for plans to
implement the new rule.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
Effective date.--The provision directing the Secretary to
revise the regulations relating to safe harbor hardship
distributions is effective on the date of enactment. The
provision relating to rollover of hardship distributions is
generally effective for distributions after December 31,
2001. For distributions occurring during calendar year 2001,
a plan may treat a distribution that is a hardship
distribution under the terms of the plan as not an eligible
rollover distribution for all purposes of the Code. Thus, for
example, if a plan treats a hardship distribution made in
2001 as not an eligible rollover distribution, the
distribution could not be rolled over and the withholding
rules applicable to distributions that are not eligible
rollover distributions would apply.
G. Pension Coverage for Domestic and Similar Workers (sec. 307 of the
Senate amendment and sec. 4972 of the Code)
Present Law
Under present law, within limits, employers may make
deductible contributions to qualified retirement plans for
employees. Subject to certain exceptions, a 10-percent excise
tax applies to nondeductible contributions to such plans.
Employers of household workers may establish a pension plan
for such workers. Contributions to such plans are not
deductible because they are not made in connection with a
trade or business of the employer.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
Under the provision, the 10-percent excise tax on
nondeductible contributions does not apply to contributions
to a SIMPLE plan or a SIMPLE IRA which are nondeductible
solely because the contributions are not a trade or business
expense under section 162 because they are not made in
connection with a trade or business of the employer. Thus,
for example, employers of household workers could make
contributions to such plans without imposition of the excise
tax. As under present law, the contributions are not
deductible. The present-law rules applicable to such plans,
e.g., contribution limits and nondiscrimination rules,
continue to apply. The provision does not apply with respect
to contributions on behalf of the employer and members of his
or her family.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Conference Agreement
The conference follows the Senate amendment, except that
the conference agreement does not limit the waiver of the
excise tax to contributions to a SIMPLE plan or SIMPLE IRA.
The conference agreement provides that the 10-percent excise
tax on nondeductible contributions does not apply to
contributions to a SIMPLE IRA or plan, SEP, or qualified plan
which are not deductible solely because the contributions are
not made in connection with a trade or business of the
taxpayer. Thus, for example, employers of household workers
could make contributions to such plans without imposition of
the excise tax. As under present law, the contributions are
not deductible. The present-law rules applicable to such
plans, e.g., contribution limits and nondiscrimination rules,
continue to apply. The provision does not apply with respect
to contributions on behalf of the employer and members of his
or her family. For this purpose, family members include the
individual, the individual's brothers and sisters, the
brothers and sisters of the individual's parents and
grandparents, and ancestors and lineal descendants of the
foregoing, and a spouse of any of the foregoing.
No inference is intended with respect to application of the
excise tax under present law to contributions that are not
deductible because they are not made in connection with a
trade or business of the employer.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Subtitle D. Increasing Portability for Participants (secs. 431-439 of
the bill)
A. Rollovers of Retirement Plan and IRA Distributions (secs. 401-403 of
the House bill, sec. 401-403 of the Senate amendment and secs. 401,
402, 403(b), 408, 457, and 3405 of the Code)
Present Law
In general
Present law permits the rollover of funds from a tax-
favored retirement plan to another tax-favored retirement
plan. The rules that apply depend on the type of plan
involved. Similarly, the rules regarding the tax treatment of
amounts that are not rolled over depend on the type of plan
involved.
Distributions from qualified plans
Under present law, an ``eligible rollover distribution''
from a tax-qualified employer-sponsored retirement plan may
be rolled over tax free to a traditional individual
retirement arrangement (``IRA'') 30 or another
qualified plan.31 An ``eligible rollover
distribution'' means any distribution to an employee of all
or any portion of the balance to the credit of the employee
in a qualified plan, except the term does not include (1) any
distribution which is one of a series of substantially equal
periodic payments made (a) for the life (or life expectancy)
of the employee or the joint lives (or joint life
expectancies) of the employee and the employee's designated
beneficiary, or (b) for a specified period of 10 years or
more, (2) any distribution to the extent such distribution is
required under the minimum distribution rules, and (3)
certain hardship distributions. The maximum amount that can
be rolled over is the amount of the distribution includible
in income, i.e., after-tax employee contributions cannot be
rolled over. Qualified plans are not required to accept
rollovers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ A ``traditional'' IRA refers to IRAs other than Roth
IRAs or SIMPLE IRAs. All references to IRAs in the
description of this provision refer only to traditional IRAs.
\31\ An eligible rollover distribution may either be rolled
over by the distributee within 60 days of the date of the
distribution or, as described below, directly rolled over by
the distributing plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distributions from tax-sheltered annuities
Eligible rollover distributions from a tax-sheltered
annuity (``section 403(b) annuity'') may be rolled over into
an IRA or another section 403(b) annuity. Distributions from
a section 403(b) annuity cannot be rolled over into a tax-
qualified plan. Section 403(b) annuities are not required to
accept rollovers.
IRA distributions
Distributions from a traditional IRA, other than minimum
required distributions, can be rolled over into another IRA.
In general, distributions from an IRA cannot be rolled over
into a qualified plan or section 403(b) annuity. An exception
to this rule applies in the case of so-called ``conduit
IRAs.'' Under the conduit IRA rule, amounts can be rolled
from a qualified plan into an IRA and then subsequently
rolled back to another qualified plan if the amounts in the
IRA are attributable solely to rollovers from a qualified
plan. Similarly, an amount may be rolled over from a section
403(b) annuity to an IRA and subsequently rolled back into a
section 403(b) annuity if the amounts in the IRA are
attributable solely to rollovers from a section 403(b)
annuity.
Distributions from section 457 plans
A ``section 457 plan'' is an eligible deferred compensation
plan of a State or local government or tax-exempt employer
that meets certain requirements. In some cases, different
rules apply under section 457 to governmental plans and plans
of tax-exempt employers. For example, governmental section
457 plans are like qualified plans in that plan assets are
required to be held in a trust for the exclusive benefit of
plan participants and beneficiaries. In contrast, benefits
under a section 457 plan of a tax-exempt employer are
unfunded, like nonqualified deferred compensation plans of
private employers.
Section 457 benefits can be transferred to another section
457 plan. Distributions from a section 457 plan cannot be
rolled over to another section 457 plan, a qualified plan, a
section 403(b) annuity, or an IRA.
Rollovers by surviving spouses
A surviving spouse that receives an eligible rollover
distribution may roll over the distribution into an IRA, but
not a qualified plan or section 403(b) annuity.
Direct rollovers and withholding requirements
Qualified plans and section 403(b) annuities are required
to provide that a plan participant has the right to elect
that an eligible
[[Page 24459]]
rollover distribution be directly rolled over to another
eligible retirement plan. If the plan participant does not
elect the direct rollover option, then withholding is
required on the distribution at a 20-percent
rate.32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Distributions from qualified plans and section 403(b)
annuities that are not eligible rollover distributions are
subject to elective withholding. Periodic distributions are
subject to withholding as if the distribution were wages;
nonperiodic distributions are subject to withholding at a
rate of 10 percent. In either case, the individual may elect
not to have withholding apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct rollover rules do not apply to section 457
plans. Distributions from a section 457 plan are subject to
wage withholding.
Notice of eligible rollover distribution
The plan administrator of a qualified plan or a section
403(b) annuity is required to provide a written explanation
of rollover rules to individuals who receive a distribution
eligible for rollover. In general, the notice is to be
provided within a reasonable period of time before making the
distribution and is to include an explanation of (1) the
provisions under which the individual may have the
distribution directly rolled over to another eligible
retirement plan, (2) the provision that requires withholding
if the distribution is not directly rolled over, (3) the
provision under which the distribution may be rolled over
within 60 days of receipt, and (4) if applicable, certain
other rules that may apply to the distribution. The Secretary
has provided more specific guidance regarding timing and
content of the notice and has issued a safe harbor notice
that is deemed to satisfy the requirements regarding the
content of the notice.
Taxation of distributions
As is the case with the rollover rules, different rules
regarding taxation of benefits apply to different types of
tax-favored arrangements. In general, distributions from a
qualified plan, section 403(b) annuity, or IRA are includible
in income in the year received. In certain cases,
distributions from qualified plans are eligible for capital
gains treatment and averaging. These rules do not apply to
distributions from another type of plan. Distributions from a
qualified plan, IRA, and section 403(b) annuity generally are
subject to an additional 10-percent early withdrawal tax if
made before age 59\1/2\. There are a number of exceptions to
the early withdrawal tax. Some of the exceptions apply to all
three types of plans, and others apply only to certain types
of plans. For example, the 10-percent early withdrawal tax
does not apply to IRA distributions for educational expenses,
but does apply to similar distributions from qualified plans
and section 403(b) annuities. Benefits under a section 457
plan are generally includible in income when paid or made
available. The 10-percent early withdrawal tax does not apply
to section 457 plans.
house bill
In general
The bill provides that eligible rollover distributions from
qualified retirement plans, section 403(b) annuities, and
governmental section 457 plans generally may be rolled over
to any of such plans or arrangements. Similarly,
distributions from an IRA generally may be rolled over into a
qualified plan, section 403(b) annuity, or governmental
section 457 plan. The direct rollover and withholding rules
are extended to distributions from a governmental section 457
plan, and such plans are required to provide the written
notification regarding eligible rollover
distributions.33 The rollover notice (with respect
to all plans) is required to include a description of the
provisions under which distributions from the plan to which
the distribution is rolled over may be subject to
restrictions and tax consequences different than those
applicable to distributions from the distributing plan.
Qualified plans, section 403(b) annuities, and section 457
plans are not required to accept rollovers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The elective withholding rules applicable to
distributions from qualified plans and section 403(b)
annuities that are not eligible rollover distributions are
also extended to distributions from governmental section 457
plans. Thus, periodic distributions from governmental section
457 plans that are not eligible rollover distributions are
subject to withholding as if the distribution were wages and
nonperiodic distributions from such plans that are not
eligible rollover distributions are subject to withholding at
a 10-percent rate. In either case, the individual may elect
not to have withholding apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some special rules apply in certain cases. A distribution
from a qualified plan is not eligible for capital gains or
averaging treatment if there was a rollover to the plan that
would not have been permitted under present law. Thus, in
order to preserve capital gains and averaging treatment for a
qualified plan distribution that is rolled over, the rollover
must be made to a ``conduit IRA'' as under present law, and
then rolled back into a qualified plan. Amounts distributed
from a section 457 plan are subject to the early withdrawal
tax to the extent the distribution consists of amounts
attributable to rollovers from another type of plan. Section
457 plans are required to separately account for such
amounts.
Rollover of after-tax contributions
The bill provides that employee after-tax contributions may
be rolled over into another qualified plan or a traditional
IRA. In the case of a rollover from a qualified plan to
another qualified plan, the rollover may be accomplished only
through a direct rollover. In addition, a qualified plan is
permitted to accept rollovers of after-tax contributions only
if the plan provides separate accounting for such
contributions (and earnings thereon). After-tax contributions
(including nondeductible contributions to an IRA) may not be
rolled over from an IRA into a qualified plan, tax-sheltered
annuity, or section 457 plan.
In the case of a distribution from a traditional IRA that
is rolled over into an eligible rollover plan that is not an
IRA, the distribution is attributed first to amounts other
than after-tax contributions.
Expansion of spousal rollovers
The bill provides that surviving spouses may roll over
distributions to a qualified plan, section 403(b) annuity, or
governmental section 457 plan in which the surviving spouse
participates.
Treasury regulations
The Secretary is directed to prescribe rules necessary to
carry out the provisions. Such rules may include, for
example, reporting requirements and mechanisms to address
mistakes relating to rollovers. It is expected that the IRS
will develop forms to assist individuals who roll over after-
tax contributions to an IRA in keeping track of such
contributions. Such forms could, for example, expand Form
8606--Nondeductible IRAs, to include information regarding
after-tax contributions.
Effective date
The provisions are effective for distributions after
December 31, 2000.
senate amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Effective date.--The provisions are effective for
distributions after December 31, 2001.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment. The conferees intend that the Secretary
will revise the safe harbor rollover notice that plans may
use to satisfy the rollover requirements. Until issuance of a
new notice, the conferees intend that a plan will be treated
as complying with the notice requirement if the plan makes a
reasonable, good faith effort to comply. For example, the
bill requires that the rollover notice include a description
of the provisions under which distributions from the eligible
retirement plan receiving the distribution may be subject to
restrictions and tax consequences which are different from
those applicable to distributions from the plan making the
distribution. A plan will be treated as making a reasonable
good faith effort to comply with this requirement if the
notice states that distributions from the plan to which the
rollover is made may be subject to different restrictions and
tax consequences than those that apply to distributions from
the plan from which the rollover is made.
Effective date.--The provisions are effective for
distributions after December 31, 2000, except that the
provision allowing after-tax contributions to be rolled over
is effective for distributions after December 31, 2001.
B. Waiver of 60-Day Rule (sec. 404 of the House bill, sec. 404 of the
Senate amendment, and secs. 402 and 408 of the Code)
present law
Under present law, amounts received from an IRA or
qualified plan may be rolled over tax free if the rollover is
made within 60 days of the date of the distribution. The
Secretary does not have the authority to waive the 60-day
requirement.
house bill
The bill provides that the Secretary may waive the 60-day
rollover period if the failure to waive such requirement
would be against equity or good conscience, including cases
of casualty, disaster, or other events beyond the reasonable
control of the individual subject to such requirement.
Effective date.--The provision applies to distributions
made after December 31, 2000.
senate amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
C. Treatment of Forms of Distribution (Sec. 405 of the House bill, Sec.
405 of the Senate Amendment, and Sec. 411(d)(6) of the Code)
present law
An amendment of a qualified retirement plan may not
decrease the accrued benefit of a plan participant. An
amendment is treated as reducing an accrued benefit if, with
respect to benefits accrued before the amendment is adopted,
the amendment has the effect of either (1) eliminating or
reducing an early retirement benefit or a retirement-type
subsidy, or (2) except as provided by Treasury regulations,
eliminating an optional form of benefit (sec.
411(d)(6)).34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ A similar provision is contained in Title I of ERISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24460]]
The Treasury Department has recently issued final
regulations specifying situations in which optional forms of
benefit may be eliminated. These regulations provide that, if
certain requirements are satisfied, optional forms of benefit
may be eliminated or reduced in connection with the voluntary
transfer of benefits between defined contribution plans in
connection with an asset or stock acquisition, merger, or
other similar transaction involving a change in employer or
in connection with the participant's change in employment
status to an employment status with respect to which the
participant is not entitled to additional allocations under
the transferor plan.35 The regulations also permit
defined contribution plans to eliminate or restrict optional
forms of benefit if the participant is entitled to receive a
single-sum distribution that is otherwise identical to the
optional form of benefit that is being eliminated or
restricted.36
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Treas. reg. sec. 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-3, paragraph (b).
\36\ Treas. reg. sec. 1.411(d)-4 Q&A-2, paragraph (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A plan that is a transferee of a plan that is subject to
the joint and survivor rules is also subject to those rules.
house bill
Transfers between defined contribution plans
A defined contribution plan to which benefits are
transferred is not treated as reducing a participant's or
beneficiary's accrued benefit even though it does not provide
all of the forms of distribution previously available under
the transferor plan if (1) the plan receives from another
defined contribution plan a direct transfer of the
participant's or beneficiary's benefit accrued under the
transferor plan, or the plan results from a merger or other
transaction that has the effect of a direct transfer
(including consolidations of benefits attributable to
different employers within a multiple employer plan), (2) the
terms of both the transferor plan and the transferee plan
authorize the transfer, (3) the transfer occurs pursuant to a
voluntary election by the participant or beneficiary that is
made after the participant or beneficiary received a notice
describing the consequences of making the election, (4) in
the case of a plan that provides for an annuity as the normal
form of distribution in accordance with the joint and
survivor rules (sec. 417), the participant's spouse (if any)
consents to the transfer in a manner similar to the consent
required by section 417, and (5) the transferee plan allows
the participant or beneficiary to receive distribution of his
or her benefit under the transferee plan in the form of a
single sum distribution. The bill does not modify the rules
relating to survivor annuities under section 417. Thus, as
under present law, a plan that is a transferee of a plan
subject to the joint and survivor rules is also subject to
those rules.
Elimination of optional forms of benefit in the case of
defined contribution plans offering a single-sum
distribution
Except to the extent provided by the Secretary of the
Treasury in regulations, a defined contribution plan is not
treated as reducing a participant's accrued benefit if (1) a
plan amendment eliminates a form of distribution previously
available under the plan, (2) a single sum distribution is
available to the participant at the same time or times as the
form of distribution eliminated by the amendment, and (3) the
single sum distribution is based on the same or greater
portion of the participant's accrued benefit as the form of
distribution eliminated by the amendment.
Early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and
optional forms of benefit
The provision directs the Secretary of the Treasury to
provide by regulations that the prohibitions against
eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit, a
retirement-type subsidy, or an optional form of benefit shall
not apply to plan amendments that do not adversely affect the
rights of participants in a material manner but that do
eliminate or reduce early retirement benefits, retirement-
type subsidies, and optional forms of benefit that create
significant burdens and complexities for a plan and its
participants.
It is intended that the factors to be considered in
determining whether an amendment has a materially adverse
effect on a participant would include (1) all of the
participant's early retirement benefits, retirement-type
subsidies, and optional forms of benefits that are reduced or
eliminated by the amendment, (2) the extent to which early
retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional
forms of benefit in effect with respect to a participant
after the amendment effective date provide rights that are
comparable to the rights that are reduced or eliminated by
the plan amendment, (3) the number of years before the
participant attains normal retirement age under the plan (or
early retirement age, as applicable), (4) the size of the
participant's benefit that is affected by the plan amendment,
in relation to the amount of the participant's compensation,
and (5) the number of years before the plan amendment is
effective.
Treasury regulations
The Secretary is directed to issue, not later than December
31, 2001, final regulations under section 411(d)(6),
including regulations required under the provision.
Effective date
The provision is effective for years beginning after
December 31, 2000, except that the direction to the Secretary
is effective on the date of enactment.
senate amendment
Transfers between defined contribution plans
The Senate amendment provision regarding transfers of
defined contribution plan benefits is the same as the House
bill, except that the Senate amendment does not include the
requirement that, in the case of a plan with an annuity as
the normal form of distribution, the spouse, if any, must
consent to the transfer. As under present law, a plan that is
a transferee of a plan subject to the joint and survivor
rules is subject to the joint and survivor rules.
Elimination of optional forms of benefit in the case of
defined contribution plans offering a single-sum
distribution
The Senate amendment does not include the provision
regarding elimination of forms of distribution in the case of
plans offering a lump sum.
Early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and
optional forms of benefit
The Senate amendment directs the Secretary of the Treasury
to provide by regulations that the prohibitions against
eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit, a
retirement-type subsidy, or an optional form of benefit do
not apply to plan amendments that eliminate or reduce early
retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional
forms of benefit that create significant burdens and
complexities for a plan and its participants, but only if
such an amendment does not adversely affect the rights of any
participant in more than a de minimis manner.
For this purpose, the factors to be considered in
determining whether an amendment has more than a de minimis
adverse effect on any participant include (1) all of the
participant's early retirement benefits, retirement-type
subsidies, and optional forms of benefits that are reduced or
eliminated by the amendment, (2) the extent to which early
retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional
forms of benefit in effect with respect to a participant
after the amendment effective date provide rights that are
comparable to the rights that are reduced or eliminated by
the plan amendment, (3) the number of years before the
participant attains normal retirement age under the plan (or
early retirement age, as applicable), (4) the amount of the
participant's benefit that is affected by the plan amendment,
in relation to the amount of the participant's
compensation,37 and (5) the number of years before
the plan amendment is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ In determining the amount of any subsidy under the
provision, it is expected that the regulations will value the
subsidy by reference to the date on which it would be the
most valuable with respect to the participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury regulations
The provision regarding issuance of Treasury regulations is
the same as the House bill.
Effective date
The effective date of the Senate amendment provision is the
same as the House bill.38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Senate amendment also amends the corresponding
provisions of ERISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Agreement
Transfers between defined contribution plans
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
Elimination of optional forms of benefit in the case of
defined contribution plans offering a single-sum
distribution
The conference agreement follows the House bill.
Early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and
optional forms of benefit
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment. As
under the Senate amendment, the Secretary is directed to
provide by regulation that the prohibitions against
eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit, a
retirement-type subsidy, or an optional form of benefit do
not apply to plan amendments that eliminate or reduce early
retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional
forms of benefit that create significant burdens and
complexities for a plan and its participants and that do not
adversely affect the rights of any participant in more than a
de minimis manner.
For this purpose, the factors to be considered in
determining whether an amendment has more than a de minimis
adverse effect on any participant include (1) all of the
participant's early retirement benefits, retirement-type
subsidies, and optional forms of benefits that are reduced or
eliminated by the amendment, (2) the extent to which early
retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional
forms of benefit in effect with respect to a participant
after the amendment effective date provide rights that are
comparable to the rights that are reduced or eliminated by
the plan amendment, (3) the number of years before the
participant attains normal retirement age under the plan (or
early retirement age, as applicable), (4) the amount of the
participant's benefit that
[[Page 24461]]
is affected by the plan amendment, in relation to the amount
of the participant's compensation,39 and (5) the
number of years before the plan amendment is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ In determining the amount of any subsidy under the
provision, it is expected that the regulations will value the
subsidy by reference to the date on which it would be the
most valuable with respect to the participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This provision of the bill does not affect the rules
relating to involuntary cash outs (sec. 411(a)(11))
40 or survivor annuity requirements (sec. 417).
Accordingly, if a participant is entitled to protections of
the joint and survivor rules, those protections may not be
eliminated. The intent of the provision authorizing
regulations is solely to permit the elimination of early
retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, or optional
forms of benefit that have no more than a de minimis effect
on any participant but create disproportionate burdens and
complexities for a plan and its participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Another provision of the bill provides that rollover
amounts are not taken into account for purposes of the cash-
out rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, assume the following. Employer A acquires
employer B and merges B's defined benefit plan into A's
defined benefit plan. The defined benefit plan maintained by
B before the merger provides an early retirement subsidy for
individuals age 55 with a specified number of years of
service. E1 and E2 are were employees of B and who transfer
to A in connection with the merger. E1 is 25 years old and
has compensation of $40,000. The present value of E's early
retirement subsidy under B's plan is $75. E2 is 50 years old
and also has compensation of $40,000. The present value of
Y's early retirement subsidy under B's plan is $10,000.
Assume that A's plan has an early retirement subsidy for
individuals who have attained age 50 with a specified number
of years of service, but the subsidy is not the same as under
B's plan. Under A's plan, the present value of E2's early
retirement subsidy is $9,500. Maintenance of both subsidies
would create burdens for the plan and complexities for the
plan and its participants.
Treasury regulations could permit E1's early retirement
subsidy under B's plan to be eliminated entirely (i.e., even
if A's plan did not have an early retirement subsidy). Taking
into account all relevant factors, including the value of the
benefit, E1's compensation, and the number of years until E1
would be eligible to receive the subsidy, the subsidy is de
minimis. Treasury regulations could permit E2's early
retirement subsidy under B's plan to be eliminated as to be
replaced by the subsidy under A's plan, because the
difference in the subsidies is de minimis. However, A's
subsidy could not be entirely eliminated.
Treasury regulations
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment, except that the conference agreement
provides that the Secretary is to issue the required
regulations not later than December 31, 2002. Such
regulations are to be effective for plan years beginning
after December 31, 2002, or such earlier date as is specified
by the Secretary.
Effective date
The provision is effective for years beginning after
December 31, 2000, except that the direction to the Secretary
is effective on the date of enactment.
D. Rationalization of Restrictions on Distributions (sec. 406 of the
House bill, sec. 406 of the Senate amendment, and secs. 401(k), 403(b),
and 457 of the Code)
present law
Elective deferrals under a qualified cash or deferred
arrangement (``section 401(k) plan''), tax-sheltered annuity
(``section 403(b) annuity''), or an eligible deferred
compensation plan of a tax-exempt organization or State or
local government (``section 457 plan''), may not be
distributable prior to the occurrence of one or more
specified events. These permissible distributable events
include ``separation from service.''
A separation from service occurs only upon a participant's
death, retirement, resignation or discharge, and not when the
employee continues on the same job for a different employer
as a result of the liquidation, merger, consolidation or
other similar corporate transaction. A severance from
employment occurs when a participant ceases to be employed by
the employer that maintains the plan. Under a so-called
``same desk rule,'' a participant's severance from employment
does not necessarily result in a separation from
service.41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Rev. Rul. 79-336, 1979-2 C.B. 187.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to separation from service and other events, a
section 401(k) plan that is maintained by a corporation may
permit distributions to certain employees who experience a
severance from employment with the corporation that maintains
the plan but does not experience a separation from service
because the employee continues on the same job for a
different employer as a result of a corporate transaction. If
the corporation disposes of substantially all of the assets
used by the corporation in a trade or business, a
distributable event occurs with respect to the accounts of
the employees who continue employment with the corporation
that acquires the assets. If the corporation disposes of its
interest in a subsidiary, a distributable event occurs with
respect to the accounts of the employees who continue
employment with the subsidiary.
house bill
The bill modifies the distribution restrictions applicable
to section 401(k) plans, section 403(b) annuities, and
section 457 plans to provide that distribution may occur upon
severance from employment rather than separation from
service. In addition, the provisions for distribution from a
section 401(k) plan based upon a corporation's disposition of
its assets or a subsidiary is repealed; this special rule is
no longer be necessary as a result of the changes made by the
provision.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for
distributions after December 31, 2000, regardless of when the
severance of employment occurred.
senate amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
E. Purchase of Service Credit under Governmental Pension Plans (sec.
407 of the House bill, sec. 407 of the Senate amendment, and secs.
403(b) and 457 of the Code)
present law
A qualified retirement plan maintained by a State or local
government employer may provide that a participant may make
after-tax employee contributions in order to purchase
permissive service credit, subject to certain limits (sec.
415). Permissive service credit means credit for a period of
service recognized by the governmental plan only if the
employee voluntarily contributes to the plan an amount (as
determined by the plan) that does not exceed the amount
necessary to fund the benefit attributable to the period of
service and that is in addition to the regular employee
contributions, if any, under the plan.
In the case of any repayment of contributions and earnings
to a governmental plan with respect to an amount previously
refunded upon a forfeiture of service credit under the plan
(or another plan maintained by a State or local government
employer within the same State), any such repayment is not
taken into account for purposes of the section 415 limits on
contributions and benefits. Also, service credit obtained as
a result of such a repayment is not considered permissive
service credit for purposes of the section 415 limits.
A participant may not use a rollover or direct transfer of
benefits from a tax-sheltered annuity (``section 403(b)
annuity'') or an eligible deferred compensation plan of a
tax-exempt organization of a State or local government
(``section 457 plan'') to purchase permissive service credits
or repay contributions and earnings with respect to a
forfeiture of service credit.
house bill
A participant in a State or local governmental plan is not
required to include in gross income a direct trustee-to-
trustee transfer to a governmental defined benefit plan from
a section 403(b) annuity or a section 457 plan if the
transferred amount is used (1) to purchase permissive service
credits under the plan, or (2) to repay contributions and
earnings with respect to an amount previously refunded under
a forfeiture of service credit under the plan (or another
plan maintained by a State or local government employer
within the same State).
Effective date.--The provision is effective for transfers
after December 31, 2000.
senate amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
F. Employers May Disregard Rollovers for Purposes of Cash-Out Rules
(sec. 408 of the House bill, sec. 408 of the Senate amendment, and sec.
411(a)(11) of the Code)
Present Law
If an qualified retirement plan participant ceases to be
employed by the employer that maintains the plan, the plan
may distribute the participant's nonforfeitable accrued
benefit without the consent of the participant and, if
applicable, the participant's spouse, if the present value of
the benefit does not exceed $5,000. If such an involuntary
distribution occurs and the participant subsequently returns
to employment covered by the plan, then service taken into
account in computing benefits payable under the plan after
the return need not include service with respect to which a
benefit was involuntarily distributed unless the employee
repays the benefit.42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ A similar provision is contained in Title I of ERISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24462]]
Generally, a participant may roll over an involuntary
distribution from a qualified plan to an IRA or to another
qualified plan.43
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Other provisions of the bill expand the kinds of plans
to which benefits may be rolled over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
For purposes of the cash-out rule, a plan is permitted to
provide that the present value of a participant's
nonforfeitable accrued benefit is determined without regard
to the portion of such benefit that is attributable to
rollover contributions (and any earnings allocable thereto).
Effective date.--The provision is effective for
distributions after December 31, 2000.
senate amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
G. Minimum Distribution and Inclusion Requirements For Section 457
Plans (sec. 409 of the House bill, sec. 409 of the Senate amendment,
and sec. 457 of the Code)
Present Law
A ``section 457 plan'' is an eligible deferred compensation
plan of a State or local government or tax-exempt employer
that meets certain requirements. For example, amounts
deferred under a section 457 plan cannot exceed certain
limits. Amounts deferred under a section 457 plan are
generally includible in income when paid or made available.
Amounts deferred under a plan of deferred compensation of a
State or local government or tax-exempt employer that does
not meet the requirements of section 457 are includible in
income when the amounts are not subject to a substantial risk
of forfeiture, regardless of whether the amounts have been
paid or made available.44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ This rule of inclusion does not apply to amounts
deferred under a tax-qualified retirement plan or similar
plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 457 plans are subject to the minimum distribution
rules applicable to tax- qualified pension plans. In
addition, such plans are subject to additional minimum
distribution rules (sec. 457(d)(2)(B)).
The limits on section 457 plans were first applied to plans
of tax-exempt employers pursuant to the Tax Reform Act of
1986 (the ``1986 Act''), generally effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 1986. The limitations of
section 457 do not apply to amounts deferred under a plan of
a tax-exempt employer by an individual covered under such a
plan on August 16, 1986, if the amounts (1) were deferred
from taxable years beginning before January 1, 1987, or (2)
are deferred from taxable years beginning after December 31,
1986, pursuant to an agreement that was in writing on August
16, 1986, and on such date provided for a deferral for each
taxable year covered by the agreement of a fixed amount or of
an amount determined pursuant to a fixed formula. The
provision in (2) ceases to apply if there is any modification
to the agreement or formula.
house bill
The House bill provides that amounts deferred under a
section 457 plan of a State or local government are
includible in income when paid.
The House bill also repeals the special minimum
distribution rules applicable to section 457 plans. Thus,
such plans are subject to the minimum distribution rules
applicable to qualified plans.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for
distributions after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment includes the House bill provisions.
In addition, the Senate amendment modifies the transition
rule adopted in the 1986 Act relating to deferred
compensation plans of tax-exempt employers. Under the bill,
the transition rule applies to agreements providing cost-of-
living adjustments to amounts that otherwise satisfy the
requirements of the transition rule. The grandfather does not
apply to the extent that the annual amount provided under
such an agreement exceeds the annual grandfathered amount
multiplied by the cumulative increase in the Consumer Price
Index (as published by the Department of Labor).
Effective date.--The provision is generally effective for
distributions after December 31, 2000. The provision relating
to plans of tax-exempt organizations is effective for taxable
years ending after the date of enactment for cost-of-living
increases after September 1993.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill.
Subtitle E. Strengthening Pension Security and Enforcement (secs. 441-
448 of the bill)
A. Phase in Repeal of 155 Percent of Current Liability Funding Limit;
Deduction for Contributions to Fund Termination Liability (secs. 501
and 502 of the House bill, secs. 501 and 502 of the Senate amendment,
and secs. 404(a)(1), 412(c)(7), and 4972(c) of the Code)
present law
Under present law, defined benefit pension plans are
subject to minimum funding requirements designed to ensure
that pension plans have sufficient assets to pay benefits. A
defined benefit pension plan is funded using one of a number
of acceptable actuarial cost methods.
No contribution is required under the minimum funding rules
in excess of the full funding limit. The full funding limit
is generally defined as the excess, if any, of (1) the lesser
of (a) the accrued liability under the plan (including normal
cost) or (b) 155 percent of the plan's current liability,
over (2) the value of the plan's assets (sec.
412(c)(7)).45 In general, current liability is all
liabilities to plan participants and beneficiaries accrued to
date, whereas the accrued liability full funding limit is
based on projected benefits. The current liability full
funding limit is scheduled to increase as follows: 160
percent for plan years beginning in 2001 or 2002, 165 percent
for plan years beginning in 2003 and 2004, and 170 percent
for plan years beginning in 2005 and thereafter.46
In no event is a plan's full funding limit less than 90
percent of the plan's current liability over the value of the
plan's assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The minimum funding requirements, including the full
funding limit, are also contained in title I of ERISA.
\46\ As originally enacted in the Pension Protection Act of
1997, the current liability full funding limit was 150
percent of current liability. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
increased the current liability full funding limit to 155
percent in 1999 and 2000, and adopted the scheduled increases
described in the text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An employer sponsoring a defined benefit pension plan
generally may deduct amounts contributed to satisfy the
minimum funding standard for the plan year. Contributions in
excess of the full funding limit generally are not
deductible. Under a special rule, an employer that sponsors a
defined benefit pension plan (other than a multiemployer
plan) which has more than 100 participants for the plan year
may deduct amounts contributed of up to 100 percent of the
plan's unfunded current liability.
house bill
Current liability full funding limit
The bill gradually increases and then repeals the current
liability full funding limit. The current liability full
funding limit is 160 percent of current liability for plan
years beginning in 2001, 165 percent for plan years beginning
in 2002, and 170 percent for plan years beginning in 2003.
The current liability full funding limit is repealed for plan
years beginning in 2004 and thereafter. Thus, in 2004 and
thereafter, the full funding limit will be the excess, if
any, of (1) the accrued liability under the plan (including
normal cost), over (2) the value of the plan's assets.
Deduction for contributions to fund termination liability
The special rule allowing a deduction for unfunded current
liability generally is extended to all defined benefit
pension plans, i.e., the provision applies to multiemployer
plans and plans with 100 or fewer participants. The special
rule does not apply to plans not covered by the PBGC
termination insurance program.47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The PBGC termination insurance program does not cover
plans of professional service employers that have fewer than
25 participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill also modifies the rule by providing that the
deduction is for up to 100 percent of unfunded termination
liability, determined as if the plan terminated at the end of
the plan year. In the case of a plan with less than 100
participants for the plan year, termination liability does
not include the liability attributable to benefit increases
for highly compensated employees resulting from a plan
amendment which was made or became effective, whichever is
later, within the last two years.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for plan years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
senate amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
B. Excise Tax Relief for Sound Pension Funding (sec. 503 of the House
bill, sec. 503 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 4972 of the Code)
present law
Under present law, defined benefit pension plans are
subject to minimum funding requirements designed to ensure
that pension plans have sufficient assets to pay benefits. A
defined benefit pension plan is funded using one of a number
of acceptable actuarial cost methods.
No contribution is required under the minimum funding rules
in excess of the full funding limit. The full funding limit
is generally defined as the excess, if any, of (1) the lesser
of (a) the accrued liability under the plan (including normal
cost) or (b) 155 percent of the plan's current liability,
over (2) the value of the plan's assets (sec. 412(c)(7)). In
general, current liability is all liabilities to plan
participants and beneficiaries accrued to date, whereas the
accrued liability full funding limit is based on projected
benefits. The current liability full funding limit is
scheduled to increase as follows: 160 percent for plan years
beginning in 2001 or 2002, 165 percent for plan years
beginning in 2003
[[Page 24463]]
and 2004, and 170 percent for plan years beginning in 2005
and thereafter.48 In no event is a plan's full
funding limit less than 90 percent of the plan's current
liability over the value of the plan's assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ As originally enacted in the Pension Protection Act of
1997, the current liability full funding limit was 150
percent of current liability. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
increased the current liability full funding limit to 155
percent in 1999 and 2000, and adopted the scheduled increases
described in the text. Another proposal would gradually
increase and then repeal the current liability full funding
limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An employer sponsoring a defined benefit pension plan
generally may deduct amounts contributed to satisfy the
minimum funding standard for the plan year. Contributions in
excess of the full funding limit generally are not
deductible. Under a special rule, an employer that sponsors a
defined benefit pension plan (other than a multiemployer
plan) which has more than 100 participants for the plan year
may deduct amounts contributed of up to 100 percent of the
plan's unfunded current liability.
Present law also provides that contributions to defined
contribution plans are deductible, subject to certain
limitations.
Subject to certain exceptions, an employer that makes
nondeductible contributions to a plan is subject to an excise
tax equal to 10 percent of the amount of the nondeductible
contributions for the year. The 10-percent excise tax does
not apply to contributions to certain terminating defined
benefit plans. The 10-percent excise tax also does not apply
to contributions of up to 6 percent of compensation to a
defined contribution plan for employer matching and employee
elective deferrals.
House Bill
In determining the amount of nondeductible contributions,
the employer is permitted to elect not to take into account
contributions to a defined benefit pension plan except to the
extent they exceed the accrued liability full funding limit.
Thus, if an employer elects, contributions in excess of the
current liability full funding limit are not subject to the
excise tax on nondeductible contributions. An employer making
such an election for a year is not permitted to take
advantage of the present-law exceptions for certain
terminating plans and certain contributions to defined
contribution plans. The provision applies to terminated plans
as well as ongoing plans.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
C. Notice of Significant Reduction in Plan Benefit Accruals (sec. 504
of the House bill, secs. 521-523 of the Senate amendment, and secs.
411(d) and 417(e) and new sec. 4980F of the Code)
Present Law
Section 204(h) of Title I of ERISA provides that a defined
benefit pension plan or a money purchase pension plan may not
be amended so as to provide for a significant reduction in
the rate of future benefit accrual, unless, after adoption of
the plan amendment and not less than 15 days before the
effective date of the plan amendment, the plan administrator
provides a written notice (``section 204(h) notice''),
setting forth the plan amendment (or a summary of the
amendment written in a manner calculated to be understood by
the average plan participant) and its effective date. The
plan administrator must provide the section 204(h) notice to
each plan participant, each alternate payee under an
applicable qualified domestic relations order (``QDRO''), and
each employee organization representing participants in the
plan. The applicable Treasury regulations 49
provide, however, that a plan administrator need not provide
the section 204(h) notice to any participant or alternate
payee whose rate of future benefit accrual is reasonably
expected not to be reduced by the amendment, nor to an
employee organization that does not represent a participant
to whom the section 204(h) notice must be provided. In
addition, the regulations provide that the rate of future
benefit accrual is determined without regard to optional
forms of benefit, early retirement benefits, retirement-type
subsidiaries, ancillary benefits, and certain other rights
and features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Treas. Reg. sec. 1.411(d)-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A covered amendment generally will not become effective
with respect to any participants and alternate payees whose
rate of future benefit accrual is reasonably expected to be
reduced by the amendment but who do not receive a section
204(h) notice. An amendment will become effective with
respect to all participants and alternate payees to whom the
section 204(h) notice was required to be provided if the plan
administrator (1) has made a good faith effort to comply with
the section 204(h) notice requirements, (2) has provided a
section 204(h) notice to each employee organization that
represents any participant to whom a section 204(h) notice
was required to be provided, (3) has failed to provide a
section 204(h) notice to no more than a de minimis percentage
of participants and alternate payees to whom a section 204(h)
notice was required to be provided, and (4) promptly upon
discovering the oversight, provides a section 204(h) notice
to each omitted participant and alternate payee.
The Internal Revenue Code does not require any notice
concerning a plan amendment that provides for a significant
reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual.
The Internal Revenue Code prohibits the reduction of a
participant's accrued benefit by plan amendment (sec.
411(d)(6)), and, for this purpose, except to the extent set
forth in Treasury regulations, treats the elimination or
reduction of an early retirement benefit or retirement-type
subsidy or an optional form of benefit as a reduction of a
participant's accrued benefit. However, this prohibition does
not prevent a plan amendment from ceasing or reducing future
accruals.
In the case of a pension plan that is subject to the joint
and survivor annuity rules, the Internal Revenue Code (sec.
417(e)) restricts distributions before normal retirement age
without the consent of the participant and the participant's
spouse unless the value of the distribution does not exceed a
dollar limit ($5,000 under sec. 411(a)(11)(A)). For this
purpose, under Treasury regulations, a specific interest rate
and mortality table are prescribed for purposes of
determining whether the distribution exceeds the dollar limit
and prohibits a lump sum distribution of an amount less than
the amount determined under the applicable interest rate and
mortality table even if the distribution exceeds the dollar
limit.
House Bill
The provision adds to the Internal Revenue Code a
requirement that the plan administrator of a defined benefit
pension plan or a money purchase pension plan with more than
100 participants furnish a written notice concerning a plan
amendment that provides for a significant reduction in the
rate of future benefit accrual. The plan administrator is
required to provide in this notice, in a manner calculated to
be understood by the average plan participant, sufficient
information (as defined in Treasury regulations) to allow
participants to understand the effect of the amendment.
The notice requirement does not apply to governmental plans
or church plans with respect to which an election to have the
qualified plan participation, vesting, and funding rules
apply has not been made (sec. 410(d)).
The plan administrator is required to provide this notice
to each affected participant, each affected alternate payee,
and each employee organization representing affected
participants. For purposes of the provision, an affected
participant or alternate payee is a participant or alternate
payee to whom the significant reduction in the rate of future
benefit accrual is reasonably expected to apply.
Except to the extent provided by Treasury regulations, the
plan administrator is required to provide the notice within a
reasonable time before the effective date of the plan
amendment.
The provision imposes on a plan administrator that fails to
comply with the notice requirement an excise tax equal to
$100 per day per omitted participant and alternate payee. For
failures due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect,
the total excise tax imposed during a taxable year of the
employer will not exceed $500,000. Furthermore, in the case
of a failure due to reasonable cause and not to willful
neglect, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to waive
the excise tax to the extent that the payment of the tax
would be excessive relative to the failure involved.
It is intended that the Secretary will issue the necessary
regulations with respect to disclosure within 90 days of
enactment. It is also intended that such guidance may be
relatively detailed because of the need to provide for
alternative disclosures rather than a single disclosure
methodology that may not fit all situations, and the need to
consider the complex actuarial calculations and assumptions
involved in providing necessary disclosures.
In addition, the provision directs the Secretary of the
Treasury to prepare a report on the effects of conversions of
traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance or hybrid
formula plans. Such study is to examine the effect of such
conversions on longer service participants, including the
incidence and effects of ``wear away'' provisions under which
participants earn no additional benefits for a period of time
after the conversion. The Secretary is directed to submit
such report, together with recommendations thereon, to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate as soon as
practicable, but not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for plan
amendments taking effect on or after the date of enactment.
The period for providing any notice required under the
provision will not end before the last day of the 3-month
period following the date of enactment. Prior to the issuance
of Treasury regulations, a plan will be treated as meeting
the requirements of the provision if the plan makes a good
faith effort to comply with such requirements.
[[Page 24464]]
Senate Amendment
The provision adds to the Internal Revenue Code a
requirement that the plan administrator of a pension plan
furnish a written notice concerning a plan amendment that
provides for a significant reduction in the rate of future
benefit accrual, including any elimination or reduction of an
early retirement benefit or retirement-type
subsidy.50 The notice is required to set forth:
(1) a summary of the amendment and the effective date of the
amendment; (2) a statement that the amendment is expected to
significantly reduce the rate of future benefit accrual; (3)
a description of the classes of employees reasonably expected
to be affected by the reduction in the rate of future benefit
accrual; (4) examples illustrating the plan changes for these
classes of employees; (5) in the event of an amendment that
results in a conversion of a traditional defined benefit plan
to a cash balance plan (described below), a notice that the
plan administrator will provide, generally no later than 15
days prior to the effective date of the amendment, a
``benefit estimation tool kit'' (described below) that will
enable affected participants who have completed at least 1
year of participation to personalize the illustrative
examples; and (6) notice of each affected participant's right
to request, and of the procedures for requesting, an annual
benefit statement as provided under present law. The plan
administrator is required to provide the notice not less than
45 days before the effective date of the plan amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The provision also modifies the present-law notice
requirement contained in section 204(h) of Title I of ERISA
to provide that an applicable pension plan may not be amended
to provide for a significant reduction in the rate of future
benefit accrual in the event of an egregious failure by the
plan administrator to comply with a notice requirement
similar to the notice requirement that the provision adds to
the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the provision expands
the current ERISA notice requirement regarding significant
reductions in normal retirement benefit accrual rates to
early retirement benefits and retirement-type subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notice requirement does not apply to plans to which
ERISA sec. 204(h) does not apply, including governmental
plans or church plans with respect to which an election to
have the qualified plan participation, vesting, and funding
rules apply has not been made (sec. 410(d)).
The plan administrator is required to provide this
generalized notice to each affected participant and each
affected alternate payee. For purposes of the provision, an
affected participant or alternate payee is a participant or
alternate payee to whom the reduction in the rate of future
benefit accrual, including any elimination or significant
reduction in early retirement benefit or retirement-type
subsidy, is reasonably expected to apply.
As noted above, the provision requires the plan
administrator to provide a benefit estimation tool kit, no
later than 15 days prior to the amendment effective date, to
a participant for whom the amendment may reasonably be
expected to produce a significant reduction in the rate of
future benefit accrual if the amendment has the effect of
converting a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash
balance plan. The plan administrator is not required to
provide this benefit estimation tool kit to any participant
who has less than 1 year of participation in the plan. For
purposes of the provision, a ``cash balance plan'' means a
defined benefit plan under which the accrued benefit is
determined as an amount other than an annual benefit
commencing at normal retirement age, and any defined benefit
plan, or portion of such a plan, that has an effect similar
to a defined benefit plan under which the accrued benefit is
determined as an amount other than an annual benefit
commencing at normal retirement age (as determined under
Treasury regulations). If the benefits of 2 or more defined
benefit plans established or maintained by an employer are
coordinated in such a manner as to have the effect of a
conversion to a cash balance plan, the provision treats the
sponsor of the plan or plans providing for such coordination
as having adopted such a conversion as of the date such
coordination begins. If a plan sponsor represents in
communications to participants and beneficiaries that a plan
amendment has an effect equivalent to a cash balance
conversion, such amendment is (to the extent provided in
Treasury regulations) treated as a cash balance conversion.
In addition, the provision provides for the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue regulations to prevent avoidance of the
requirements of the provision through the use of 2 or more
plan amendments rather than a single amendment.
The benefit estimation tool kit is designed to enable
participants to estimate benefits under the old and new plan
provisions. The provision permits the tool kit to be in the
form of software (for use at home, at a workplace kiosk, or
on a company intranet), worksheets, or calculation
instructions, or other formats to be determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The tool kit is required to
include any necessary actuarial assumptions and formulas and
to permit the participant to estimate both a single life
annuity at appropriate ages and, when available, a lump sum
distribution. The tool kit is required to disclose the
interest rate used to compute a lump sum distribution and
whether the value of early retirement benefits is included in
the lump sum distribution.
The provision requires the benefit estimation tool kit to
accommodate employee-provided variables with respect to age,
years of service, retirement age, covered compensation, and
interest rate (when variable rates apply). The tool kit is
required to permit employees to recalculate estimated
benefits by changing the values of these variables. The
provision does not require the tool kit to accommodate
employee variables with respect to qualified domestic
relations orders, factors that result in unusual patterns of
credited service (such as extended time away from the job),
special benefit formulas for unusual situations, offsets from
other plans, and forms of annuity distributions.
In the case of a cash balance conversion that occurs in
connection with a business disposition or acquisition
transaction and within 1 year following the date of the
transaction, the provision requires the plan administrator to
provide the benefit estimation tool kit prior to the end of
the 2-year period following the date of the transaction to
the affected participants who become participants as a result
of the transaction.
The provision permits a plan administrator to provide any
notice required under the provision to a person designated in
writing by the individual to whom it would otherwise be
provided. In addition, the provision authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury to allow any notice required under the
provision to be provided by using new technologies.
The provision imposes on a plan administrator that fails to
comply with the notice requirement an excise tax equal to
$100 per day per omitted participant and alternate payee. No
excise tax shall be imposed during any period during which
any person subject to liability for the tax did not know that
the failure existed and exercised reasonable diligence to
meet the notice requirement. Also, no excise tax shall be
imposed on any failure if any person subject to liability for
the tax exercised reasonable diligence to meet the notice
requirement and such person provides the required notice
during the 30-day period beginning on the first date such
person knew, or exercising reasonable diligence would have
known, that the failure existed. If the person subject to
liability for the excise tax exercised reasonable diligence
to meet the notice requirement, the total excise tax imposed
during a taxable year of the employer will not exceed
$500,000. Furthermore, in the case of a failure due to
reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the Secretary of
the Treasury is authorized to waive the excise tax to the
extent that the payment of the tax is excessive or otherwise
inequitable relative to the failure involved.
The provision adds to the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA
requirements designed to prevent the use of ``wear away''
provisions under which participants earn no additional
benefits for a period of time after a conversion of a
traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan.
These requirements are in addition to the other provisions of
the Internal Revenue Code that prohibit the reduction of a
participant's accrued benefit by plan amendment (sec.
411(d)(6)). In the event of a conversion of a traditional
defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan, the provision
applies a minimum benefit requirement. This minimum benefit
requirement requires a participant's accrued benefit under
the cash balance plan to equal not less than (1) the benefit
accrued for years of service prior to the conversion under
the traditional defined benefit plan formula (not taking into
account any early retirement benefit or retirement-type
subsidy), plus (2) any benefit accrued for years of service
after the conversion under the cash balance plan benefit
formula. If the amendment provides that the accrued benefit
initially credited to a participant's accumulation account
(or its equivalent) on the effective date of the amendment
satisfies the present value rules described below, the plan
will not be treated as failing to provide to the participant
an accrued benefit that includes such pre-conversion accrued
benefit at any time after the effective date of the amendment
merely because of a fluctuation in interest rates. The
provision does not apply the minimum benefit requirement
designed to prevent ``wear away'' to a cash balance
conversion amendment to the extent that the amendment permits
a participant to continue to accrue benefits in the same
manner as under the terms of the plan in effect prior to the
amendment (for example, by providing for the participant to
receive the greater of the old or new formulas).
Under the provision, a plan is treated as satisfying the
minimum benefit requirement designed to prevent ``wear away''
if a plan amendment provides that the present value of a
participant's benefit accrued under a traditional defined
benefit plan formula prior to a cash balance conversion is
not less than the greater of (1) the present value determined
using the applicable mortality table and the applicable
interest rate in effect under the plan on the effective date
of the cash balance conversion, or (2) the amount of the lump
sum distribution that would be payable as of such effective
date if the participant were eligible to receive a
distribution under the terms of the plan as in
[[Page 24465]]
effect immediately before such effective date, but not taking
into account any early retirement benefit or retirement-type
subsidy.
Except as provided in regulations, the provision generally
requires the present value of the accrued benefit of any
participant under a cash balance plan to be equal to the
balance in the participant's accumulation account (or its
equivalent) as of the time of the present value
determination. This requirement will not apply to any portion
of the participant's benefit accrued prior to a cash balance
conversion except to the extent the plan provides that the
amount initially credited to a participant's accumulation
account (or its equivalent) on the effective date of the
conversion is not less than the benefit accrued for years of
service prior to the conversion under the traditional defined
benefit formula (not taking into account any early retirement
benefit or retirement-type subsidy). This provision is solely
intended to permit plan sponsors to provide interest credits
in an amount greater than the amount currently permitted
under the Internal Revenue Code. Regulations may condition
satisfaction of this requirement on the plan crediting
interest at rates not in excess of a maximum and not less
than a minimum specified in the regulations.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the provision
designed to prevent ``wear away'' results in the
disqualification of the plan.
The provision directs the Secretary of the Treasury to
define in regulations, within 12 months after the date of
enactment, the terms ``early retirement benefit'' and
``retirement-type subsidy.'' In addition, with respect to a
participant who is eligible to accrue benefits under the
terms of a defined benefit plan as in effect either before or
after an amendment that results in a conversion to a cash
balance plan, the provision directs the Secretary of the
Treasury to prescribe regulations under which (1) the plan
will be treated as meeting the requirements of sec.
411(b)(1)(A), (B), or (C) if such requirements are met
separately with respect to each of the plan's methods of
accruing benefits, and (2) the plan will not be treated as
failing to meet the requirements of sec. 401(a)(4) merely
because only participants as of the effective date of the
amendment are so eligible, if the plan met the requirements
of sec. 401(a)(4) under the terms of the plan as in effect
before the amendment (subject to the terms and conditions
provided by the regulations).
Under the provision, no inference is intended with respect
to the proper treatment of cash balance plans or conversions
to cash balance plans under the laws in effect prior to the
effective date of the provision or under laws not affected by
the provision. In addition, the provision is not intended to
result in the treatment of a cash balance plan as a defined
contribution plan, or to affect the rules relating to
involuntary cash outs (sec. 411(a)(11)) 51 or
survivor annuity requirements (sec. 417).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Another provision provides that rollover amounts are not
taken into account for purposes of the cash-out rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date.--The provision is effective for plan
amendments taking effect on or after the date of enactment,
with a delayed effective date for plans maintained pursuant
to a collective bargaining agreement. The period for
providing any notice required under the provision will not
end before the last day of the 3-month period following the
date of enactment. The notice requirements under the
provision do not apply to any plan amendment taking effect on
or after the date or enactment if, before September 5, 2000,
notice is provided to participants and beneficiaries
adversely affected by the plan amendment (or their
representatives) that is reasonably expected to notify them
of the nature and effective date of the plan amendment.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill, with the
following modifications.52 The conference
agreement also requires a notice with respect to the
elimination or reduction of an early retirement benefit or
retirement-type subsidy. In addition, the conference
agreement authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to provide
a simplified notice requirement or an exemption from the
notice requirement for plans with less than 100 participants
and to allow any notice required under the conference
agreement to be provided by using new technologies. The
conference agreement also authorizes the Secretary to provide
a simplified notice requirement or an exemption from the
notice requirement if participants are given the option to
choose between benefits under the new plan formula and the
old plan formula. In such cases, the conferees understand
that the fiduciary rules applicable to pension plans may
require appropriate disclosure to participants, even if no
disclosure is required under the provision. With respect to
the amount of the excise tax for failure to comply with the
notice requirement, the conference agreement provides that no
excise tax shall be imposed during any period during which
any person subject to liability for the tax did not know that
the failure existed and exercised reasonable diligence to
meet the notice requirement. The conference agreement also
provides that no excise tax shall be imposed on any failure
if any person subject to liability for the tax exercised
reasonable diligence to meet the notice requirement and such
person provides the required notice during the 30-day period
beginning on the first date such person knew, or exercising
reasonable diligence would have known, that the failure
existed. Furthermore, the conference agreement provides that
if the person subject to liability for the excise tax
exercised reasonable diligence to meet the notice
requirement, the total excise tax imposed during a taxable
year will not exceed $500,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The conference agreement also modifies the present-law
notice requirement contained in section 204(h) of Title I of
ERISA to provide that an applicable pension plan may not be
amended to provide for a significant reduction in the rate of
future benefit accrual in the event of a failure by the plan
administrator to comply with a notice requirement similar to
the notice requirement that the conference agreement adds to
the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the conference
agreement expands the current ERISA notice requirement
regarding significant reductions in normal retirement benefit
accrual rates to reductions in early retirement benefits and
retirement-type subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date.--The conference agreement is effective for
plan amendments taking effect on or after the date of
enactment. The period for providing any notice required under
the conference agreement will not end before the last day of
the 3-month period following the date of enactment. Prior to
the issuance of Treasury regulations, a plan will be treated
as meeting the requirements of the conference agreement if
the plan makes a good faith effort to comply with such
requirements. The notice requirement under the conference
agreement does not apply to any plan amendment taking effect
on or after the date or enactment if, before October 24,
2000, notice is provided to participants and beneficiaries
adversely affected by the plan amendment (or their
representatives) that is reasonably expected to notify them
of the nature and effective date of the plan amendment.
D. Modifications to Section 415 Limits for Multiemployer Plans (sec.
505 of the House bill, sec. 504 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 415
of the Code)
present law
Under present law, limits apply to contributions and
benefits under qualified plans (sec. 415). The limits on
contributions and benefits under qualified plans are based on
the type of plan.
Under a defined benefit plan, the maximum annual benefit
payable at retirement is generally the lesser of (1) 100
percent of average compensation for the highest three years,
or (2) $135,000 (for 2000). The dollar limit is adjusted for
cost-of-living increases in $5,000 increments. The dollar
limit is reduced in the case of retirement before the social
security retirement age and increased in the case of
retirement after the social security retirement age.
A special rule applies to governmental defined benefit
plans. In the case of such plans, the defined benefit dollar
limit is reduced in the case of retirement before age 62 and
increased in the case of retirement after age 65. In
addition, there is a floor on early retirement benefits.
Pursuant to this floor, the minimum benefit payable at age 55
is $75,000.
In the case of a defined contribution plan, the limit on
annual is additions if the lesser of (1) 25 percent of
compensation 53 or (2) $30,000 (for 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Another provision of the bill increases this limit to
100 percent of compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In applying these limits, plans of the same employer are
aggregated. That is, all defined benefit plans of the same
employer are treated as a single plan, and all defined
contribution plans of the same employer are treated as a
single plan. Under Treasury regulations, multiemployer plans
are not aggregated with other multiemployer plans. However,
if an employer maintains both a plan that is not a
multiemployer plan and a mulitemployer plan, the plan that is
not a multiemployer plan is aggregated with the multiemployer
plan to the extent that benefits provided under the
multiemployer plan are provided with respect to a common
participant.54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Treas. reg. sec. 1.415-8(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
house bill
Under the House bill, the 100 percent of compensation
defined benefit plan limit does not apply to multiemployer
plans. In addition, multiemployer plans are not aggregated
with any other plan maintained by the same employer, except
for purposes of applying the dollar limitation on defined
plans and the limits on annual additions to a plan that is
not a multiemployer plan.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
senate amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill with
respect to waiver of the 100 percent of compensation limit.
With respect to aggregation of multiemployer plans with
other plans, the Senate amendment provides that multiemployer
plans are not aggregated with single-employer defined benefit
plans maintained by an employer contributing to the
multiemployer plan for purposes of applying the 100
[[Page 24466]]
percent of compensation limit to such single-employer plan.
Effective date.--Same as the House bill.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment with respect to the 100-percent of
compensation limitation. Thus, the 100-percent of
compensation defined benefit plan limit does not apply to
multiemployer plans.
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment with
respect to the aggregation of multiemployer plans with other
plans, with modifications.
E. Investment of Employee Contributions in 401(k) Plans (sec. 505 of
the Senate amendment and sec. 1524(b) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of
1997)
present law
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended (``ERISA'') prohibits certain employee benefit plans
from acquiring securities or real property of the employer
who sponsors the plan if, after the acquisition, the fair
market value of such securities and property exceeds 10
percent of the fair market value of plan assets. The 10-
percent limitation does not apply to any ``eligible
individual account plans'' that specifically authorize such
investments. Generally, eligible individual account plans are
defined contribution plans, including plans containing a cash
or deferred arrangement (``401(k) plans'').
The term ``eligible individual account plan'' does not
include the portion of a plan that consists of elective
deferrals (and earnings on the elective deferrals) made under
section 401(k) if elective deferrals equal to more than 1
percent of any employee's eligible compensation are required
to be invested in employer securities and employer real
property. Eligible compensation is compensation that is
eligible to be deferred under the plan. The portion of the
plan that consists of elective deferrals (and earnings
thereon) is still treated as an individual account plan, and
the 10-percent limitation does not apply, as long as elective
deferrals (and earnings thereon) are not required to be
invested in employer securities or employer real property.
The rule excluding elective deferrals (and earnings
thereon) from the definition of individual account plan does
not apply if individual account plans are a small part of the
employer's retirement plans. In particular, that rule does
not apply to an individual account plan for a plan year if
the value of the assets of all individual account plans
maintained by the employer do not exceed 10 percent of the
value of the assets of all pension plans maintained by the
employer (determined as of the last day of the preceding plan
year). Multiemployer plans are not taken into account in
determining whether the value of the assets of all individual
account plans maintained by the employer exceed 10 percent of
the value of the assets of all pension plans maintained by
the employer. The rule excluding elective deferrals (and
earnings thereon) from the definition of individual account
plan does not apply to an employee stock ownership plan as
defined in section 4975(e)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The rule excluding elective deferrals (and earnings
thereon) from the definition of individual account plan
applies to elective deferrals for plan years beginning after
December 31, 1998 (and earnings thereon). It does not apply
with respect to earnings on elective deferrals for plan years
beginning before January 1, 1999.
house bill
No provision.
senate amendment
The provision modifies the effective date of the rule
excluding certain elective deferrals (and earnings thereon)
from the definition of individual account plan by providing
that the rule does not apply to any elective deferral used to
acquire employer securities or employer real property
acquired before January 1, 1999.
Effective date.--The provision is effective as if included
in the section of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that
contained the rule excluding certain elective deferrals (and
earnings thereon) from the definition of individual account
plan.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
F. Periodic Pension Benefit Statements (sec. 506 of the Senate
amendment and sec. 105(a) of ERISA)
present law
Title I of ERISA provides that a pension plan administrator
must furnish a benefit statement to any participant or
beneficiary who makes a written request for such a statement.
This statement must indicate, on the basis of the latest
available information, (1) the participant's or beneficiary's
total accrued benefit, and (2) the participant's or
beneficiary's vested accrued benefit or the earliest date on
which the accrued benefit will become vested. A participant
or beneficiary is not entitled to receive more than 1 benefit
statement during any 12-month period. The plan administrator
must furnish the benefit statement no later than 60 days
after receipt of the request or, if later, 120 days after the
close of the immediately preceding plan year.
In addition, the plan administrator must furnish a benefit
statement to each participant whose employment terminates or
who has a 1-year break in service. For purposes of this
benefit statement requirement, a ``1-year break in service''
is a calendar year, plan year, or other 12-month period
designated by the plan during which the participant does not
complete more than 500 hours of service for the employer. A
participant is not entitled to receive more than 1 benefit
statement with respect to consecutive breaks in service. The
plan administrator must provide a benefit statement required
upon termination of employment or a break in service no later
than 180 days after the end of the plan year in which the
termination of employment or break in service occurs.
house bill
No provision.
senate amendment
A plan administrator of a defined contribution plan
generally is required to furnish a benefit statement to each
participant at least once annually and to a beneficiary upon
written request.
In addition to providing a benefit statement to a
participant or beneficiary upon written request, the plan
administrator of a defined benefit plan generally is required
either (1) to furnish a benefit statement at least once every
3 years to each participant who has a vested accrued benefit
and who is employed by the employer at the time the plan
administrator furnishes the benefit statements to
participants, or (2) to annually furnish written, electronic,
telephonic, or other appropriate notice to each participant
of the availability of and the manner in which the
participant may obtain the benefit statement.
The plan administrator of a multiemployer plan or a
multiple employer plan is required to furnish a benefit
statement only upon written request of a participant or
beneficiary.55
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ A multiple employer plan is a plan that is maintained by
2 or more unrelated employers but that is not maintained
pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement (sec. 413(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plan administrator is required to write the benefit
statement in a manner calculated to be understood by the
average plan participant and is permitted to furnish the
statement in written, electronic, telephonic, or other
appropriate form.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for plan years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, with
the following modifications. The conference agreement
authorizes the Secretary of Labor to provide that years in
which no employee or former employee benefits under a plan
need not be taken into account in determining the applicable
3-year period.
Effective date.--The conference agreement is effective for
plan years beginning after December 31, 2001.
G. Prohibited Allocations of Stock in an S Corporation ESOP (sec. 506
of the House bill, sec. 507 of the Senate amendment, and secs. 409 and
4979A of the Code)
present law
The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 allowed
qualified retirement plan trusts described in section 401(a)
to own stock in an S corporation. That Act treated the plan's
share of the S corporation's income (and gain on the
disposition of the stock) as includible in full in the
trust's unrelated business taxable income (``UBTI'').
The Tax Relief Act of 1997 repealed the provision treating
items of income or loss of an S corporation as UBTI in the
case of an employee stock ownership plan (``ESOP''). Thus,
the income of an S corporation allocable to an ESOP is not
subject to current taxation.
Present law provides a deferral of income on the sales of
certain employer securities to an ESOP (sec. 1042). A 50-
percent excise tax is imposed on certain prohibited
allocations of securities acquired by an ESOP in a
transaction to which section 1042 applies. In addition, such
allocations are currently includible in the gross income of
the individual receiving the prohibited allocation.
house bill
In general
Under the provision, if there is a nonallocation year with
respect to an ESOP maintained by an S corporation: (1) the
amount allocated in a prohibited allocation to an individual
who is a disqualified person is treated as distributed to
such individual (i.e., the value of the prohibited allocation
is includible in the gross income of the individual receiving
the prohibited allocation); (2) an excise tax is imposed on
the S corporation equal to 50 percent of the amount involved
in a prohibited allocation; and (3) an excise tax is imposed
on the S corporation with respect to any synthetic equity
owned by a disqualified person.56
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The plan is not disqualified merely because an excise
tax is imposed under the provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24467]]
It is intended that the provision will limit the
establishment of ESOPs by S corporations to those that
provide broad-based employee coverage and that benefit rank-
and- file employees as well as highly compensated employees
and historical owners.
Definition of nonallocation year
A nonallocation year means any plan year of an ESOP holding
shares in an S corporation if, at any time during the plan
year, disqualified persons own at least 50 percent of the
number of outstanding shares of the S corporation.
A person is a disqualified person if the person is either
(1) a member of a ``deemed 20-percent shareholder group'' or
(2) a ``deemed 10-percent shareholder.'' A person is a member
of a ``deemed 20-percent shareholder group'' if the aggregate
number of deemed-owned shares of the person and his or her
family members is at least 20 percent of the number of
deemed-owned shares of stock in the S
corporation.57 A person is a deemed 10-percent
shareholder if the person is not a member of a deemed 20-
percent shareholder group and the number of the person's
deemed-owned shares is at least 10 percent of the number of
deemed-owned shares of stock of the corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ A family member of a member of a ``deemed 20-percent
shareholder group'' with deemed owned shares also is treated
as a disqualified person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, ``deemed-owned shares'' means: (1) stock
allocated to the account of an individual under the ESOP, and
(2) an individual's share of unallocated stock held by the
ESOP. An individual's share of unallocated stock held by an
ESOP is determined in the same manner as the most recent
allocation of stock under the terms of the plan.
For purposes of determining whether there is a
nonallocation year, ownership of stock generally is
attributed under the rules of section 318,58
except that: (1) the family attribution rules are modified to
include certain other family members, as described below, (2)
option attribution does not apply (but instead special rules
relating to synthetic equity described below apply), and (3)
``deemed-owned shares'' held by the ESOP are treated as held
by the individual with respect to whom they are deemed owned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ These attribution rules also apply to stock treated as
owned by reason of the ownership of synthetic equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the provision, family members of an individual
include (1) the spouse 59 of the individual, (2)
an ancestor or lineal descendant of the individual or his or
her spouse, (3) a sibling of the individual (or the
individual's spouse) and any lineal descendant of the brother
or sister, and (4) the spouse of any person described in (2)
or (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ As under section 318, an individual's spouse is not
treated as a member of the individual's family if the spouses
are legally separated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provision contains special rules applicable to
synthetic equity interests. Except to the extent provided in
regulations, the stock on which a synthetic equity interest
is based is treated as outstanding stock of the S corporation
and as deemed-owned shares of the person holding the
synthetic equity interest if such treatment would result in
the treatment of any person as a disqualified person or the
treatment of any year as a nonallocation year. Thus, for
example, disqualified persons for a year include those
individuals who are disqualified persons under the general
rule (i.e., treating only those shares held by the ESOP as
deemed-owned shares) and those individuals who are
disqualified individuals if synthetic equity interests are
treated as deemed-owned shares.
``Synthetic equity'' means any stock option, warrant,
restricted stock, deferred issuance stock right, or similar
interest that gives the holder the right to acquire or
receive stock of the S corporation in the future. Except to
the extent provided in regulations, synthetic equity also
includes a stock appreciation right, phantom stock unit, or
similar right to a future cash payment based on the value of
such stock or appreciation in such value.60
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The provisions relating to synthetic equity do not
modify the rules relating to S corporations, e.g., the
circumstances in which options or similar interests are
treated as creating a second class of stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership of synthetic equity is attributed in the same
manner as stock is attributed under the provision (as
described above). In addition, ownership of synthetic equity
is attributed under the rules of section 318(a)(2) and (3) in
the same manner as stock.
Definition of prohibited allocation
An ESOP of an S corporation is required to provide that no
portion of the assets of the plan attributable to (or
allocable in lieu of) S corporation stock may, during a
nonallocation year, accrue (or be allocated directly or
indirectly under any qualified plan of the S corporation) for
the benefit of a disqualified person. A ``prohibited
allocation'' refers to violations of this provision. A
prohibited allocation occurs, for example, if income on S
corporation stock held by an ESOP is allocated to the account
of an individual who is a disqualified person.
Application of excise tax
In the case of a prohibited allocation, the S corporation
is liable for an excise tax equal to 50 percent of the amount
of the allocation. For example, if S corporation stock is
allocated in a prohibited allocation, the excise tax is equal
to 50 percent of the fair market value of such stock.
A special rule applies in the case of the first
nonallocation year, regardless of whether there is a
prohibited allocation. In that year, the excise tax also
applies to the fair market value of the deemed-owned shares
of any disqualified person held by the ESOP, even though
those shares are not allocated to the disqualified person in
that year.
As mentioned above, the S corporation also is liable for an
excise tax with respect to any synthetic equity interest
owned by any disqualified person in a nonallocation year. The
excise tax is 50 percent of the value of the shares on which
synthetic equity is based.
Treasury regulations
The Treasury Department is given the authority to prescribe
such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes of the provision.
Effective date
The provision generally is effective with respect to plan
years beginning after December 31, 2001. In the case of an
ESOP established after July 11, 2000, or an ESOP established
on or before such date if the employer maintaining the plan
was not an S corporation on such date, the proposal is
effective with respect to plan years ending after July 11,
2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
Subtitle F. Reducing Regulatory Burdens (secs. 451-464 of the bill)
A. Modification of Timing of Plan Valuations (sec. 601 of the House
bill, sec. 601 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 412 of the Code)
Present Law
Under present law, plan valuations are generally required
annually for plans subject to the minimum funding rules.
Under proposed Treasury regulations, except as provided by
the Commissioner, the valuation must be as of a date within
the plan year to which the valuation refers or within the
month prior to the beginning of that year.61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Prop. reg. sec. 1.412(c)(9)-1(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
The provision incorporates into the statute the proposed
regulation regarding the date of valuations. The provision
also provides, as an exception to this general rule, that the
valuation date with respect to a plan year may be any date
within the immediately preceding plan year if, as of such
date, plan assets are not less than 125 percent of the plan's
current liability. Information determined as of such date is
required to be adjusted actuarially, in accordance with
Treasury regulations, to reflect significant differences in
plan participants. An election to use a prior plan year
valuation date, once made, may only be revoked with the
consent of the Secretary.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for plan years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House
bill.62
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ The Senate amendment also amends the corresponding
provisions of ERISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.63
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The conference agreement also amends the corresponding
provisions of ERISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. ESOP Dividends May Be Reinvested Without Loss of Dividend Deduction
(sec. 602 of the House bill, sec. 602 of the Senate amendment, and sec.
404 of the Code)
Present Law
An employer is entitled to deduct certain dividends paid in
cash during the employer's taxable year with respect to stock
of the employer that is held by an employee stock ownership
plan (``ESOP''). The deduction is allowed with respect to
dividends that, in accordance with plan provisions, are (1)
paid in cash directly to the plan participants or their
beneficiaries, (2) paid to the plan and subsequently
distributed to the participants or beneficiaries in cash no
later than 90 days after the close of the plan year in which
the dividends are paid to the plan, or (3) used to make
payments on loans (including payments of interest as well as
principal) that were used to acquire the employer securities
(whether or not allocated to participants) with respect to
which the dividend is paid.
The Secretary may disallow the deduction for any ESOP
dividend if he determines that the dividend constitutes, in
substance, an evasion of taxation (sec. 404(k)(5)).
House Bill
In addition to the deductions permitted under present law
for dividends paid with respect to employer securities that
are held by an ESOP, an employer is entitled to deduct
dividends that, at the election of plan participants or their
beneficiaries, are (1) payable in cash directly to plan
participants or
[[Page 24468]]
beneficiaries, (2) paid to the plan and subsequently
distributed to the participants or beneficiaries in cash no
later than 90 days after the close of the plan year in which
the dividends are paid to the plan, or (3) paid to the plan
and reinvested in qualifying employer securities.
As under present law, the Secretary may disallow the
deduction for any ESOP dividend if he determines that the
dividend constitutes, in substance, an evasion of taxation
(sec. 404(k)(5)).
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment, with the following modification. The
conference agreement permits the Secretary of the Treasury to
disallow the deduction for any ESOP dividend in the case of
any dividend that constitutes the avoidance or evasion of
taxation. For example, it is intended that the Secretary will
disallow the deduction as an avoidance or evasion of taxation
in circumstances similar to those that would result in a
nonallocation year under the provision of the bill relating
to S corporation ESOPs. The dividends deductible under the
provision are treated the same as other plan earnings, i.e.,
they are not subject to the limits on elective deferrals or
the special nondiscrimination rules applicable to section
401(k) plans, and are not treated as annual additions for
purposes of the section 415 limits on contributions.
C. Repeal Transition Rule Relating to Certain Highly Compensated
Employees (sec. 603 of the House bill, sec. 603 of the Senate
amendment, and sec. 1114(c)(4) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986)
Present Law
Under present law, for purposes of the rules relating to
qualified plans, a highly compensated employee is generally
defined as an employee 64 who (1) was a 5-percent
owner of the employer at any time during the year or the
preceding year or (2) either (a) had compensation for the
preceding year in excess of $85,000 (for 2000) or (b) at the
election of the employer, had compensation in excess of
$85,000 for the preceding year and was in the top 20 percent
of employees by compensation for such year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ An employee includes a self-employed individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under a rule enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, a
special definition of highly compensated employee applies for
purposes of the nondiscrimination rules relating to qualified
cash or deferred arrangements (``section 401(k) plans'') and
matching contributions. This special definition applies to an
employer incorporated on December 15, 1924, that meets
certain specific requirements.
House Bill
The provision repeals the special definition of highly
compensated employee under the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Thus,
the present-law definition applies.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for plan years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
D. Employees of Tax-Exempt Entities (sec. 604 of the House bill and
sec. 604 of the Senate amendment)
Present Law
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 provided that nongovernmental
tax-exempt employers were not permitted to maintain a
qualified cash or deferred arrangement (``section 401(k)
plan''). This prohibition was repealed, effective for years
beginning after December 31, 1996, by the Small Business Job
Protection Act of 1996.
Treasury regulations provide that, in applying the
nondiscrimination rules to a section 401(k) plan (or a
section 401(m) plan that is provided under the same general
arrangement as the section 401(k) plan), the employer may
treat as excludable those employees of a tax-exempt entity
who could not participate in the arrangement due to the
prohibition on maintenance of a section 401(k) plan by such
entities. Such employees may be disregarded only if more than
95 percent of the employees who could participate in the
section 401(k) plan benefit under the plan for the plan
year.65
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Treas. Reg. sec. 1.410(b)-6(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax-exempt charitable organizations may maintain a tax-
sheltered annuity (a ``section 403(b) annuity'') that allows
employees to make salary reduction contributions.
House Bill
The Treasury Department is directed to revise its
regulations under section 410(b) to provide that employees of
a tax-exempt charitable organization who are eligible to make
salary reduction contributions under a section 403(b) annuity
may be treated as excludable employees for purposes of
testing a section 401(k) plan, or a section 401(m) plan that
is provided under the same general arrangement as the section
401(k) plan of the employer, if (1) no employee of such tax-
exempt entity is eligible to participate in the section
401(k) or 401(m) plan and (2) at least 95 percent of the
employees who are not employees of the charitable employer
are eligible to participate in such section 401(k) plan or
section 401(m) plan.
The revised regulations are to be effective for years
beginning after December 31, 1996.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
E. Treatment of Employer-Provided Retirement Advice (sec. 605 of the
House bill, sec. 605 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 132 of the Code)
Present Law
Under present law, certain employer-provided fringe
benefits are excludable from gross income (sec. 132) and
wages for employment tax purposes. These excludable fringe
benefits include working condition fringe benefits and de
minimis fringes. In general, a working condition fringe
benefit is any property or services provided by an employer
to an employee to the extent that, if the employee paid for
such property or services, such payment would be allowable as
a deduction as a business expense. A de minimis fringe
benefit is any property or services provided by the employer
the value of which, after taking into account the frequency
with which similar fringes are provided, is so small as to
make accounting for it unreasonable or administratively
impracticable.
In addition, if certain requirements are satisfied, up to
$5,250 annually of employer-provided educational assistance
is excludable from gross income (sec. 127) and wages. This
exclusion expires with respect to courses beginning after
December 31, 2001.66 Education not excludable
under section 127 may be excludable as a working condition
fringe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ The exclusion does not apply with respect to graduate-
level courses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no specific exclusion under present law for
employer-provided retirement planning services. However, such
services may be excludable as employer-provided educational
assistance or a fringe benefit.
House Bill
Qualified retirement planning services provided to an
employee and his or her spouse by an employer maintaining a
qualified plan are excludable from income and wages.
Qualified retirement planning services are advice and
information regarding retirement planning. The exclusion is
not limited to information regarding the qualified plan, and,
thus, for example, applies to advice and information
regarding retirement income planning for an individual and
his or her spouse and how the employer's plan fits into the
individual's overall retirement income plan. On the other
hand, the exclusion does not apply to services that may be
related to retirement planning, such as tax preparation,
accounting, legal, or brokerage services.
The exclusion does not apply with respect to highly
compensated employees unless the services are available on
substantially the same terms to each member of the group of
employees normally provided education and information
regarding the employer's qualified plan.
Effective date.--The provision is effective with respect to
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment. The conferees intend that the provision
will clarify the treatment of retirement advice provided in a
nondiscriminatory manner. It is intended that the Secretary,
in determining the application of the exclusion to highly
compensated employees, may permit employers to take into
consideration employee circumstances other than compensation
and position in providing advice to classifications of
employees. Thus, for example, the Secretary may permit
employers to limit certain advice to individuals nearing
retirement age under the plan.
F. Reporting Simplification (sec. 606 of the House bill and sec. 606 of
the Senate Amendment)
Present Law
A plan administrator of a pension, annuity, stock bonus,
profit-sharing or other funded plan of deferred compensation
generally must file with the Secretary of the Treasury an
annual return for each plan year containing certain
information with respect to the qualification, financial
condition, and operation of the plan. Title I of ERISA also
may require the plan administrator to file annual reports
concerning the plan with the
[[Page 24469]]
Department of Labor and the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (``PBGC''). The plan administrator must use the
Form 5500 series as the format for the required annual
return.67 The Form 5500 series annual return/
report, which consists of a primary form and various
schedules, includes the information required to be filed with
all three agencies. The plan administrator satisfies the
reporting requirement with respect to each agency by filing
the Form 5500 series annual return/report with the Department
of Labor, which forwards the form to the Internal Revenue
Service and the PBGC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Treas. Reg. sec. 301.6058-1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Form 5500 series consists of 3 different forms: Form
5500, Form 5500-C/R, and Form 5500-EZ. Form 5500 is the most
comprehensive of the forms and requires the most detailed
financial information. Form 5500-C/R requires less
information than Form 5500, and Form 5500-EZ, which consists
of only 1 page, is the simplest of the forms.
The size of the plan determines which form a plan
administrator must file. If the plan has more than 100
participants at the beginning of the plan year, the plan
administrator generally must file Form 5500. If the plan has
fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan
year, the plan administrator generally may file Form 5500-C/
R. A plan administrator generally may file Form 5500-EZ if
(1) the only participants in the plan are the sole owner of a
business that maintains the plan (and such owner's spouse),
or partners in a partnership that maintains the plan (and
such partners' spouses), (2) the plan is not aggregated with
another plan in order to satisfy the minimum coverage
requirements of section 410(b), (3) the employer is not a
member of a related group of employers, and (4) the employer
does not receive the services of leased employees. If the
plan satisfies the eligibility requirements for Form 5500-EZ
and the total value of the plan assets as of the end of the
plan year and all prior plan years does not exceed $100,000,
the plan administrator is not required to file a return.
House Bill
The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to provide for
the filing of a simplified annual return substantially
similar to the Form 5500-EZ by a plan that (1) covers less
than 25 employees on the first day of the plan year, (2) is
not aggregated with another plan in order to satisfy the
minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b), (3) is
maintained by an employer that is not a member of a related
group of employers, and (4) is maintained by an employer that
does not receive the services of leased employees.
In addition, the Secretary is directed to modify the annual
return filing requirements with respect to plans that satisfy
the eligibility requirements for Form 5500-EZ to provide that
if the total value of the plan assets of such a plan as of
the end of the plan year and all prior plan years does not
exceed $250,000, the plan administrator is not required to
file a return.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on January 1,
2001.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except
that the Senate amendment does not include the provision
relating to annual returns for plans that cover less than 25
employees.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate bill, with the
following modification. The conference agreement directs the
Secretary of the Treasury to provide simplified reporting
requirements for plan years beginning after December 31,
2001, for certain plans with fewer than 25 employees.
G. Improvement to Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (sec. 607
of the House bill and sec. 607 of the Senate amendment)
Present Law
A retirement plan that is intended to be a tax-qualified
plan provides retirement benefits on a tax-favored basis if
the plan satisfies all of the requirements of section 401(a).
Similarly, an annuity that is intended to be a tax-sheltered
annuity provides retirement benefits on a tax-favored basis
if the program satisfies all of the requirements of section
403(b). Failure to satisfy all of the applicable requirements
of section 401(a) or section 403(b) may disqualify a plan or
annuity for the intended tax-favored treatment.
The Internal Revenue Service (``IRS'') has established the
Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (``EPCRS''),
which is a comprehensive system of correction programs for
sponsors of retirement plans and annuities that are intended,
but have failed, to satisfy the requirements of section
401(a) and section 403(b), as applicable.68 EPCRS
permits employers to correct compliance failures and continue
to provide their employees with retirement benefits on a tax-
favored basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Rev. Proc. 98-22, 1998-12 I.R.B. 11, as modified by Rev.
Proc. 99-13, 1999-5, I.R.B. 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IRS has designed EPCRS to (1) encourage operational and
formal compliance, (2) promote voluntary and timely
correction of compliance failures, (3) provide sanctions for
compliance failures identified on audit that are reasonable
in light of the nature, extent, and severity of the
violation, (4) provide consistent and uniform administration
of the correction programs, and (5) permit employers to rely
on the availability of EPCRS in taking corrective actions to
maintain the tax-favored status of their retirement plans and
annuities.
The basic elements of the programs that comprise EPCRS are
self-correction, voluntary correction with IRS approval, and
correction on audit. The Administrative Policy Regarding
Self-Correction (``APRSC'') permits a plan sponsor that has
established compliance practices to correct certain
insignificant failures at any time (including during an
audit), and certain significant failures within a 2-year
period, without payment of any fee or sanction. The Voluntary
Compliance Resolution (``VCR'') program, the Walk-In Closing
Agreement Program (``Walk-In CAP''), and the Tax-Sheltered
Annuity Voluntary Correction (``TVC'') program permit an
employer, at any time before an audit, to pay a limited fee
and receive IRS approval of a correction. For a failure that
is discovered on audit and corrected, the Audit Closing
Agreement Program (``Audit CAP'') provides for a sanction
that bears a reasonable relationship to the nature, extent,
and severity of the failure and that takes into account the
extent to which correction occurred before audit.
The IRS has expressed its intent that EPCRS will be updated
and improved periodically in light of experience and comments
from those who use it.
House Bill
The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to continue to
update and improve EPCRS, giving special attention to (1)
increasing the awareness and knowledge of small employers
concerning the availability and use of EPCRS, (2) taking into
account special concerns and circumstances that small
employers face with respect to compliance and correction of
compliance failures, (3) extending the duration of the self-
correction period under APRSC for significant compliance
failures, (4) expanding the availability to correct
insignificant compliance failures under APRSC during audit,
and (5) assuring that any tax, penalty, or sanction that is
imposed by reason of a compliance failure is not excessive
and bears a reasonable relationship to the nature, extent,
and severity of the failure.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
H. Repeal of the Multiple Use Test (sec. 608 of the House bill, sec.
608 of the Senate amendment, and sec. 401(m) of the Code)
Present Law
Elective deferrals under a qualified cash or deferred
arrangement (``section 401(k) plan'') are subject to a
special annual nondiscrimination test (``ADP test''). The ADP
test compares the actual deferral percentages (``ADPs'') of
the highly compensated employee group and the nonhighly
compensated employee group. The ADP for each group generally
is the average of the deferral percentages separately
calculated for the employees in the group who are eligible to
make elective deferrals for all or a portion of the relevant
plan year. Each eligible employee's deferral percentage
generally is the employee's elective deferrals for the year
divided by the employee's compensation for the year.
The plan generally satisfies the ADP test if the ADP of the
highly compensated employee group for the current plan year
is either (1) not more than 125 percent of the ADP of the
nonhighly compensated employee group for the prior plan year,
or (2) not more than 200 percent of the ADP of the nonhighly
compensated employee group for the prior plan year and not
more than 2 percentage points greater than the ADP of the
nonhighly compensated employee group for the prior plan year.
Employer matching contributions and after-tax employee
contributions under a defined contribution plan also are
subject to a special annual nondiscrimination test (``ACP
test''). The ACP test compares the actual deferral
percentages (``ACPs'') of the highly compensated employee
group and the nonhighly compensated employee group. The ACP
for each group generally is the average of the contribution
percentages separately calculated for the employees in the
group who are eligible to make after-tax employee
contributions or who are eligible for an allocation of
matching contributions for all or a portion of the relevant
plan year. Each eligible employee's contribution percentage
generally is the employee's aggregate after-tax employee
contributions and matching contributions for the year divided
by the employee's compensation for the year.
The plan generally satisfies the ACP test if the ACP of the
highly compensated employee group for the current plan year
is either (1) not more than 125 percent of the ACP of the
nonhighly compensated employee group for the prior plan year,
or (2) not more
[[Page 24470]]
than 200 percent of the ACP of the nonhighly compensated
employee group for the prior plan year and not more than 2
percentage points greater than the ACP of the nonhighly
compensated employee group for the prior plan year.
For any year in which (1) at least one highly compensated
employee is eligible to participate in an employer's plan or
plans that are subject to both the ADP test and the ACP test,
(2) the plan subject to the ADP test satisfies the ADP test
but the ADP of the highly compensated employee group exceeds
125 percent of the ADP of the nonhighly compensated employee
group, and (3) the plan subject to the ACP test satisfies the
ACP test but the ACP of the highly compensated employee group
exceeds 125 percent of the ACP of the nonhighly compensated
employee group, an additional special nondiscrimination test
(``multiple use test'') applies to the elective deferrals,
employer matching contributions, and after-tax employee
contributions. The plan or plans generally satisfy the
multiple use test if the sum of the ADP and the ACP of the
highly compensated employee group does not exceed the greater
of (1) the sum of (A) 1.25 times the greater of the ADP or
the ACP of the nonhighly compensated employee group, and (B)
2 percentage points plus (but not more than 2 times) the
lesser of the ADP or the ACP of the nonhighly compensated
employee group, or (2) the sum of (A) 1.25 times the lesser
of the ADP or the ACP of the nonhighly compensated employee
group, and (B) 2 percentage points plus (but not more than 2
times) the greater of the ADP or the ACP of the nonhighly
compensated employee group.
House Bill
The provision repeals the multiple use test.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
I. Flexibility in Nondiscrimination, Coverage, and Line of Business
Rules (sec. 609 of the House bill, sec. 609 of the Senate amendment and
secs. 401(a)(4), 410(b), and 414(r) of the Code)
Present Law
A plan is not a qualified retirement plan if the
contributions or benefits provided under the plan
discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees (sec.
401(a)(4)). The applicable Treasury regulations set forth the
exclusive rules for determining whether a plan satisfies the
nondiscrimination requirement. These regulations state that
the form of the plan and the effect of the plan in operation
determine whether the plan is nondiscriminatory and that
intent is irrelevant.
Similarly, a plan is not a qualified retirement plan if the
plan does not benefit a minimum number of employees (sec.
410(b)). A plan satisfies this minimum coverage requirement
if and only if it satisfies one of the tests specified in the
applicable Treasury regulations. If an employer is treated as
operating separate lines of business, the employer may apply
the minimum coverage requirements to a plan separately with
respect to the employees in each separate line of business
(sec. 414(r)). Under a so-called ``gateway'' requirement,
however, the plan must benefit a classification of employees
that does not discriminate in favor of highly compensated
employees in order for the employer to apply the minimum
coverage requirements separately for the employees in each
separate line of business. A plan satisfies this gateway
requirement only if it satisfies one of the tests specified
in the applicable Treasury regulations.
House Bill
The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to provide by
regulation applicable to years beginning after December 31,
2000, that a plan is deemed to satisfy the nondiscrimination
requirements of section 401(a)(4) if the plan satisfies the
pre-1994 facts and circumstances test, satisfies the
conditions prescribed by the Secretary to appropriately limit
the availability of such test,69 and is submitted
to the Secretary for a determination of whether it satisfies
such test (to the extent provided by the Secretary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Any conditions prescribed by the Secretary cannot be
effective before the first year beginning not less than 120
days after the date on which the condition is prescribed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, a plan complies with the minimum coverage
requirement of section 410(b) if the plan satisfies the pre-
1989 coverage rules, is submitted to the Secretary for a
determination of whether it satisfies the pre-1989 coverage
rules (to the extent provided by the Secretary), and
satisfies conditions prescribed by the Secretary by
regulation that appropriately limit the availability of the
pre-1989 coverage rules.70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Any conditions prescribed by the Secretary cannot be
effective before the first year beginning not less than 120
days after the date on which the condition is prescribed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to modify, on or
before December 31, 2000, the existing regulations issued
under section 414(r) in order to expand (to the extent that
the Secretary may determine to be appropriate) the ability of
a plan to demonstrate compliance with the line of business
requirements based upon the facts and circumstances
surrounding the design and operation of the plan, even though
the plan is unable to satisfy the mechanical tests currently
used to determine compliance.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, with
the following modification. The Senate amendment provides
that the regulations required with respect to the
nondiscrimination requirements of section 401(a)(4), the
minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b), and the line
of business requirements of section 414(r) are to be issued
or effective, whichever is applicable, by December 31, 2001.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, with
the following modification. The conference agreement provides
that the regulations required with respect to the
nondiscrimination requirements of section 401(a)(4), the
minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b), and the line
of business requirements of section 414(r) are to be issued
or effective, whichever is applicable, by December 31, 2002.
J. Extension to All Governmental Plans of Moratorium on Application of
Certain Nondiscrimination Rules Applicable to State and Local
Government Plans (sec. 610 of the House bill, sec. 610 of the Senate
amendment, and sec. 1505 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and secs.
401(a) and 401(k) of the Code)
Present Law
All governmental plans are exempt from the minimum coverage
requirements (sec. 410(b)). A qualified retirement plan
maintained by a State or local government is exempt from the
rules concerning nondiscrimination (sec. 401(a)(4)) and
minimum participation (sec. 401(a)(26)). All other
governmental plans are not exempt from the nondiscrimination
and minimum participation rules.
House Bill
The provision exempts all governmental plans (as defined in
sec. 414(d)) from the nondiscrimination and minimum
participation rules.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for plan years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill and the
Senate amendment.
K. Notice and Consent Period Regarding Distributions; Disclosure of
Optional Forms of Benefit (sec. 611 of the House bill, sec. 611 of the
Senate amendment, and secs. 402(f), 411, and 417 of the Code)
Present Law
Notice and consent requirements apply to certain
distributions from qualified retirement plans. These
requirements relate to the content and timing of information
that a plan must provide to a participant prior to a
distribution, and to whether the plan must obtain the
participant's consent to the distribution. The nature and
extent of the notice and consent requirements applicable to a
distribution depend upon the value of the participant's
vested accrued benefit and whether the joint and survivor
annuity requirements (sec. 417) apply to the
participant.71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Similar provisions are contained in Title I of ERISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the present value of the participant's vested accrued
benefit exceeds $5,000, the plan may not distribute the
participant's benefit without the written consent of the
participant. The participant's consent to a distribution is
not valid unless the participant has received from the plan a
notice that contains a written explanation of (1) the
material features and the relative values of the optional
forms of benefit available under the plan, (2) the
participant's right, if any, to have the distribution
directly transferred to another retirement plan or IRA, and
(3) the rules concerning the taxation of a distribution. If
the joint and survivor annuity requirements apply to the
participant, this notice also must contain a written
explanation of (1) the terms and conditions of the qualified
joint and survivor annuity (``QJSA''), (2) the participant's
right to make, and the effect of, an election to waive the
QJSA, (3) the rights of the participant's spouse with respect
to a participant's waiver of the QJSA, and (4) the right to
make, and the effect of, a revocation of a waiver of the
QJSA. The plan generally must provide this notice
[[Page 24471]]
to the participant no less than 30 and no more than 90 days
before the date distribution commences.
If the participant's vested accrued benefit does not exceed
$5,000, the terms of the plan may provide for distribution
without the participant's consent. The plan generally is
required, however, to provide to the participant a notice
that contains a written explanation of (1) the participant's
right, if any, to have the distribution directly transferred
to another retirement plan or IRA, and (2) the rules
concerning the taxation of a distribution. The plan generally
must provide this notice to the participant no less than 30
and no more than 90 days before the date distribution
commences.
The plan administrator is required to provide to the
distributee of an eligible rollover distribution an
explanation of the rollover and withholding rules applicable
to the distribution. This notice must generally be provided
no less than 30 days and not more than 90 days before the
date of the distribution.
House Bill
A qualified retirement plan is required to provide the
applicable distribution notice no less than 30 days and no
more than 180 days before the date distribution commences.
The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to modify the
applicable regulations to reflect the extension of the notice
period to 180 days and to provide that the description of a
participant's right, if any, to defer receipt of a
distribution shall also describe the consequences of failing
to defer such receipt.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill with
respect to the notice and consent period regarding
distributions.
In addition, the Senate amendment requires that plan
participants be notified of the existence of certain
differences between the values of optional forms of benefit.
If a plan provides optional forms of benefits and the present
values of such optional forms of benefits are not actuarially
equivalent as of the annuity starting date, then the plan is
required to provide certain information regarding such
benefits in the notice required to be provided regarding
joint and survivor annuities. The information must be
sufficient (as determined in accordance with Treasury
regulations) to allow the participant to understand the
differences in the present values of the optional forms of
benefits and the effect the participant's election as to the
form of benefit will have on the value of the benefits
provided under the plan. The information must be provided in
a manner calculated to be reasonably understood by the
average plan participant.
Effective date.--Same as the House bill.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, with
the following modification. With respect to the disclosure of
the differences between the values of optional forms of
benefits, the conference agreement directs the Secretary of
the Treasury to issue, not later than December 31, 2001,
final regulations under section 417(a)(3). These regulations
are to provide that, if a defined benefit plan offers both a
qualified joint and survivor annuity and a single sum
optional form of benefit, and the distributable amount under
such single sum option is less than the present value
(determined in accordance with section 417(e)) of the
qualified joint and survivor annuity commencing as of the
same annuity starting date, the applicable distribution
notice shall include sufficient information to permit the
participant to understand the difference between the present
value of the qualified joint and survivor annuity and the
amount of the single sum. If the plan offers an unmarried
participant one or more annuity options that are
substantially more valuable than the qualified joint and
survivor annuity offered by the plan, the required comparison
shall be made between the single sum option and the most
valuable of the other annuity options. The conference
agreement provides that the regulations shall apply to
distributions made not earlier than 6 months after the date
the regulations are issued.
L. Annual Report Dissemination (sec. 612 of the Senate amendment and
sec. 104(b)(3) of ERISA)
Present Law
Title I of ERISA generally requires the plan administrator
of each employee pension benefit plan and each employee
welfare benefit plan to file an annual report concerning the
plan with the Secretary of Labor within seven months after
the end of the plan year. Within nine months after the end of
the plan year, the plan administrator generally must provide
to each participant and to each beneficiary receiving
benefits under the plan a summary of the annual report filed
with the Secretary of Labor for the plan year.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
Within nine months after the end of each plan year, the
plan administrator is required to make available for
examination a summary of the annual report filed with the
Secretary of Labor for the plan year. In addition, the plan
administrator is required to furnish the summary to a
participant, or to a beneficiary receiving benefits under the
plan, upon request.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for reports for
years beginning after December 31, 1999.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, with
the following modification. The conference agreement provides
that the requirement that the summary annual report be
provided to participants and beneficiaries is satisfied if
the report is reasonably available through electronic means
or other new technology.
M. Modifications to the SAVER Act (sec. 613 of the Senate amendment and
sec. 517 of ERISA)
Present Law
The Savings Are Vital to Everyone's Retirement (``SAVER'')
Act 72 initiated a public-private partnership to
educate American workers about retirement savings and
directed the Department of Labor to maintain an ongoing
program of public information and outreach. The Act also
convened a National Summit on Retirement Savings held June 4-
5, 1998, and to be held again in 2001 and 2005, co-hosted by
the President and the bipartisan Congressional leadership.
The National Summit brings together experts in the fields of
employee benefits and retirement savings, key leaders of
government, and interested parties from the private sector
and general public. The delegates are selected by the
Congressional leadership and the President. The National
Summit is a public-private partnership, receiving substantial
funding from private sector contributions. The goals of the
National Summits are to: (1) advance the public's knowledge
and understanding of retirement savings and facilitate the
development of a broad-based, public education program; (2)
identify the barriers which hinder workers from setting aside
adequate savings for retirement and impede employers,
especially small employers, from assisting their workers in
accumulating retirement savings; and (3) develop specific
recommendations for legislative, executive, and private
sector actions to promote retirement income savings among
American workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Pub. L. No. 105-92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
The provision clarifies that future National Summits on
Retirement Savings are to be held in the month of September
in 2001 and 2005, and would add an additional National Summit
in 2009. To facilitate the administration of future National
Summits, the Department of Labor is given authority to enter
into cooperative agreements (pursuant to the Federal Grant
and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977) with its 1999 summit
partner, the American Savings Education Council.
Six new statutory delegates are added to future National
Summits: the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Ways
and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and the
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations of the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce. Further, the
President, in consultation with the Congressional leadership,
may appoint up to three percent of the delegates (not to
exceed 10) from a list of nominees provided by the private
sector partner in Summit administration. The provision also
clarifies that new delegates are to be appointed for each
future National Summit (as was the intent of the original
legislation) and sets deadlines for their appointment.
The provision also sets deadlines for the Department of
Labor to publish the Summit agenda, gives the Department of
Labor limited reception and representation authority, and
mandates that the Department of Labor consult with the
Congressional leadership in drafting the post-Summit report.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment.
N. Studies (sec. 614 of the Senate amendment)
Present Law
No provision.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
Report on pension coverage
The bill directs the Secretary to report to the Senate
Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and
Means regarding the effect of the bill on pension coverage,
including any expansion of coverage for low- and moderate-
income workers, levels of pension benefits, quality of
coverage, worker's access to and participation in plans, and
retirement security. This report is required to be submitted
no later than five years after the date of enactment.
Studies of preretirement uses of benefits and investment
decisions
The bill directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the
present-law rules that permit
[[Page 24472]]
individuals to access their IRA or qualified retirement plan
benefits prior to retirement, including an analysis of the
use of the existing rules and the extent to which such rules
undermine the goal of accumulating adequate resources for
retirement. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is
directed to conduct a study of the types of investment
decisions made by IRA owners and participants in self-
directed qualified retirement plans, including an analysis of
the existing restrictions on investments and the extent to
which additional restrictions would facilitate the
accumulation of adequate income for retirement. The studies
are required to be submitted to the Senate Committee on
Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means no later
than January 1, 2002.
Effective date
The provisions are effective on the date of enactment.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, with
the following modification. The conference agreement does not
direct the Secretary to conduct the study relating to pre-
retirement access to IRA or qualified retirement plan assets
or the study relating to the types of investment decisions
made by IRA owners and participants in self-directed
qualified retirement plans.
TITLE VII: OTHER ERISA PROVISIONS (secs. 471-478 of the bill)
A. Extension of PBGC Missing Participants Program (secs. 206(f) and
4050 of ERISA)
Present Law
The plan administrator of a single-employer defined benefit
pension plan that is subject to Title IV of ERISA and
terminates under a standard termination is required to
distribute the assets of the plan. With respect to a
participant whom the plan administrator cannot locate after a
diligent search, the plan administrator satisfies the
distribution requirement only by purchasing irrevocable
commitments from an insurer to provide all benefit
liabilities under the plan or transferring the participant's
designated benefit to the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (``PBGC''), which holds the benefit of the
missing participant as trustee until the PBGC locates the
missing participant and distributes the benefit.
The PBGC missing participant program is not available to
multiemployer plans or defined contribution plans and other
plans not covered by Title IV of ERISA.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The PBGC is directed to prescribe for terminating
multiemployer plans rules similar to the present-law missing
participant rules applicable to terminating single employer
plans that are subject to Title IV of ERISA.
In addition, plan administrators of certain types of plans
not subject to the PBGC termination insurance program under
present law are permitted, but not required, to elect to
transfer missing participants' benefits to the PBGC upon plan
termination. Specifically, the provision extends the missing
participants program to defined contribution plans, defined
benefit plans that have no more than 25 active participants
and are maintained by professional service employers, and the
portion of defined benefit plans that provide benefits based
upon the separate accounts of participants and therefor are
treated as defined contribution plans under ERISA.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for
distributions made after final regulations under the
provision are prescribed.
B. Reduce PBGC Premiums for Small and New Plans (sec. 4006 of ERISA)
Present Law
Under present law, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
(``PBGC'') provides insurance protection for participants and
beneficiaries under certain defined benefit pension plans by
guaranteeing certain basic benefits under the plan in the
event the plan is terminated with insufficient assets to pay
benefits promised under the plan. The guaranteed benefits are
funded in part by premium payments from employers who sponsor
defined benefit plans. The amount of the required annual PBGC
premium for a single-employer plan is generally a flat rate
premium of $19 per participant and an additional variable-
rate premium based on a charge of $9 per $1,000 of unfunded
vested benefits. Unfunded vested benefits under a plan
generally means (1) the unfunded current liability for vested
benefits under the plan, over (2) the value of the plan's
assets, reduced by any credit balance in the funding standard
account. No variable-rate premium is imposed for a year if
contributions to the plan were at least equal to the full
funding limit.
The PBGC guarantee is phased in ratably in the case of
plans that have been in effect for less than 5 years, and
with respect to benefit increases from a plan amendment that
was in effect for less than 5 years before termination of the
plan.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
Reduced flat-rate premiums for new plans of small employers
Under the conference agreement, for the first five plan
years of a new single-employer plan of a small employer, the
flat-rate PBGC premium is $5 per plan participant.
A small employer is a contributing sponsor that, on the
first day of the plan year, has 100 or fewer employees. For
this purpose, all employees of the members of the controlled
group of the contributing sponsor are taken into account. In
the case of a plan to which more than one unrelated
contributing sponsor contributes, employees of all
contributing sponsors (and their controlled group members)
are taken into account in determining whether the plan is a
plan of a small employer.
A new plan means a defined benefit plan maintained by a
contributing sponsor if, during the 36-month period ending on
the date of adoption of the plan, such contributing sponsor
(or controlled group member or a predecessor of either) has
not established or maintained a plan subject to PBGC coverage
with respect to which benefits were accrued for substantially
the same employees as are in the new plan.
Reduced variable-rate PBGC premium for new plans
The provision provides that the variable-rate premium is
phased in for new defined benefit plans over a six-year
period starting with the plan's first plan year. The amount
of the variable-rate premium is a percentage of the variable
premium otherwise due, as follows: 0 percent of the otherwise
applicable variable-rate premium in the first plan year; 20
percent in the second plan year; 40 percent in the third plan
year; 60 percent in the fourth plan year; 80 percent in the
fifth plan year; and 100 percent in the sixth plan year (and
thereafter).
A new defined benefit plan is defined as described above
under the flat-rate premium provision relating to new small
employer plans.
Reduced variable-rate PBGC premium for small plans
In the case of a plan of a small employer, the variable-
rate premium is no more than $5 multiplied by the number of
plan participants in the plan at the end of the preceding
plan year. For purposes of this provision, a small employer
is a contributing sponsor that, on the first day of the plan
year, has 25 or fewer employees. For this purpose, all
employees of the members of the controlled group of the
contributing sponsor are taken into account. In the case of a
plan to which more than one unrelated contributing sponsor
contributes, employees of all contributing sponsors (and
their controlled group members) are taken into account in
determining whether the plan is a plan of a small employer.
Effective date
The reduction of the flat-rate premium for new plans of
small employers and the reduction of the variable-rate
premium for new plans are effective with respect to plans
established after December 31, 2000. The reduction of the
variable-rate premium for small plans is effective with
respect to plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
C. Authorization for PBGC to Pay Interest on Premium Overpayment
Refunds (sec. 4007(b) of ERISA)
Present Law
The PBGC charges interest on underpayments of premiums, but
is not authorized to pay interest on overpayments.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement allows the PBGC to pay interest on
overpayments made by premium payors. Interest paid on
overpayments is to be calculated at the same rate and in the
same manner as interest is charged on premium underpayments.
Effective date.--The provision is effective with respect to
interest accruing for periods beginning not earlier than the
date of enactment.
D. Rules for Substantial Owner Benefits in Terminated Plans (secs.
4021, 4022, 4043 and 4044 of ERISA)
Present Law
Under present law, the PBGC provides participants and
beneficiaries in a defined benefit pension plan with certain
guarantees as to the receipt of benefits under the plan in
case of plan termination. The employer sponsoring the defined
benefit pension plan is required to pay premiums to the PBGC
to provide insurance for the guaranteed benefits. In general,
the PBGC will guarantee all basic benefits which are payable
in periodic installments for the life (or lives) of the
participant and his or her beneficiaries and are non-
forfeitable at the time of plan termination. The amount of
the guaranteed benefit is subject to certain limitations. One
[[Page 24473]]
limitation is that the plan (or an amendment to the plan
which increases benefits) must be in effect for 60 months
before termination for the PBGC to guarantee the full amount
of basic benefits for a plan participant, other than a
substantial owner. In the case of a substantial owner, the
guaranteed basic benefit is phased in over 30 years beginning
with participation in the plan. A substantial owner is one
who owns the entire interest in an unincorporated trade or
business, or who owns, directly or indirectly, more than 10
percent of the voting stock of a corporation or all the stock
of a corporation, or, in the case of a partnership, one who
owns, directly or indirectly, more than 10 percent of either
the capital interest or profits interest. Special rules
restricting the amount of benefit guaranteed and the
allocation of assets also apply to substantial owners.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The provision provides that the 60 month phase-in of
guaranteed benefits applies to a substantial owner with less
than a 50 percent ownership interest. For a substantial owner
with a 50 percent or more ownership interest (``majority
owner''), the phase-in occurs over a 10-year period and
depends on the number of years the plan has been in effect.
The majority owner's guaranteed benefit is limited so that it
may not be more than the amount phased in over 60 months for
other participants. The rules regarding allocation of assets
apply to substantial owners, other than majority owners, in
the same manner as other participants.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for plan
terminations with respect to which notices of intent to
terminate are provided, or for which proceedings for
termination are instituted by the PBGC, after December 31,
2000.
E. Multiemployer Plan Benefits Guarantee (sec. 4022A of ERISA)
Present Law
The PBGC guarantees benefits of workers in multiemployer
plans. The monthly guarantee is equal to the participant's
years of service multiplied by the sum of (1) 100 percent of
the first $5 of the monthly benefit accrual rate, and (2) 75
percent of the next $15 of the accrual rate. The level of
benefits guaranteed by the PBGC under the multiemployer
program has not increased since 1980. For a retiree with 30
years of service, the maximum guaranteed annual benefit is
$5,850. The maximum guarantee under the PBGC's single-
employer program is adjusted each year to reflect changes in
the social security wage index.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement adjusts the amount guaranteed in
multiemployer plans to account for changes in the social
security wage index since 1980. Under the conference
agreement, the PBGC guarantees a monthly benefit equal to the
participant's years of service multiplied by the sum of (1)
100 percent of the first $11 of the monthly benefit accrual
rate, and (2) 75 percent of the next $33 of the accrual rate.
Thus, the conference agreement increases the maximum annual
guarantee for a retiree with 30 years of service to $12,870.
Effective date.--The provision applies to benefits payable
after the date of enactment, except that the provision does
not apply to benefits under any multiemployer plan that has
received financial assistance from the PBGC under section
4261 of ERISA within the 1-year period ending on the date of
enactment.
F. Civil Penalties for Breach of Fiduciary Responsibility (sec. 502 of
ERISA)
Present Law
Present law requires the Secretary of Labor to assess a
civil penalty against (1) a fiduciary who breaches a
fiduciary responsibility under, or commits a violation of,
part 4 of Title I of ERISA, or (2) any other person who
knowingly participates in such a breach or violation. The
penalty is equal to 20 percent of the ``applicable recovery
amount'' that is paid pursuant to a settlement agreement with
the Secretary of Labor or that a court orders to be paid in a
judicial proceeding brought by the Secretary of Labor to
enforce ERISA's fiduciary responsibility provisions. The
Secretary of Labor may waive or reduce the penalty only if
the Secretary finds in writing that either (1) the fiduciary
or other person acted reasonably and in good faith, or (2) it
is reasonable to expect that the fiduciary or other person
cannot restore all the losses without severe financial
hardship unless the waiver or reduction is granted.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement makes the assessment of the
penalty discretionary with the Secretary of Labor, rather
than mandatory. This change will allow the Secretary to
refrain from imposing the penalty in certain cases as well as
to assess a penalty of less than 20 percent of the applicable
recovery amount. The requirement of a settlement agreement is
also eliminated. The applicable recovery amount is any amount
recovered by a plan or by a participant or beneficiary more
than 30 days after the fiduciary's or other person's receipt
of a written notice of the violation from the Department of
Labor (``DOL''). Payments made after the 30-day grace
period,73 whether they are made pursuant to a
settlement agreement, or simply to discourage the DOL from
bringing a legal action, are subject to the penalty, as are
amounts recovered pursuant to a court order. ERISA section
502(l) is also amended to clarify that the term ``applicable
recovery amount'' includes payments by third parties that are
made on behalf of the relevant fiduciary or other persons
liable for the amount that is recovered, including those who
did not actually pay. These changes prevent avoidance of the
penalty by having an unrelated third party pay the recovery
amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The 30-day period may be extended by the Secretary of
Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date.--The provision applies to any breach of
fiduciary responsibility or other violation of part 4 of
Title I of ERISA occurring on or after the date of enactment.
The change with respect to ``applicable recovery amount''
includes a transition rule whereby a breach or other
violation occurring before the date of enactment which
continues past the 180th day from enactment (and which may
have been discontinued during that period) is treated as
having occurred after the date of enactment (to avoid having
to make a complex determination regarding how much of the
applicable recovery amount for such continuing violations
should be attributed to the post-enactment part of the
violation).
G. Benefit Suspension Notice (sec. 203 of ERISA)
Present Law
Under present law (ERISA sec. 203(a)(3)(B)), a plan will
not fail to satisfy the vesting requirements with respect to
a participant by reason of suspending payment of the
participant's benefits while such participant is employed.
Under the applicable Department of Labor (``DOL'')
regulations, such a suspension is only permissible if the
plan notifies the participant during the first calendar month
or payroll period in which the plan withholds benefit
payments. Such notice must provide certain information and
must also include a copy of the plan's provisions relating to
the suspension of payments.
In the case of a plan that does not pay benefits to active
participants upon attainment of normal retirement age, the
employer must monitor plan participants to determine when any
participant who is still employed attains normal retirement
age. In order to suspend payment of such a participant's
benefits, generally a plan must, as noted above, promptly
provide the participant with a suspension notice.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement directs the Secretary of Labor to
revise the regulations relating to the benefit suspension
notice to generally permit the information currently required
to be set forth in a suspension notice to be included in the
summary plan description. The provision also directs the
Secretary of Labor to eliminate the requirement that the
notice include a copy of relevant plan provisions. However,
individuals reentering the workforce to resume work with a
former employer after they have begun to receive benefits
will still receive the notification of the suspension of
benefits (and a copy of the plan's provisions relating to
suspension of payments). In addition, if a reduced rate of
future benefit accruals will apply to a returning employee
(as of his or her first date of participation in the plan
after returning to work) who has begin to receive benefits,
the notice must include a statement that the rate of future
benefit accruals will be reduced.
Effective date.--The provision applies to plan years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Subtitle H. Provisions Relating to Plan Amendments (sec. 481 of the
bill) (sec. 701 of the House bill and sec. 701 of the Senate Amendment)
Present Law
Plan amendments to reflect amendments to the law generally
must be made by the time prescribed for filing the income tax
return of the employer for the employer's taxable year in
which the change in the law occurs.
A plan amendment may not decrease the accrued benefit of a
plan participant (sec. 411(d)(6)).
House Bill
The House bill permits certain plan amendments made
pursuant to the changes made by the bill (or regulations
issued under the
[[Page 24474]]
provisions of the bill) to be retroactively effective. If the
plan amendment meets the requirements of the bill, then the
plan is treated as being operated in accordance with its
terms and the amendment does not violate the prohibition of
reductions of accrued benefits. In order for this treatment
to apply, the plan amendment must be made on or before the
last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January
1, 2003 (January 1, 2005, in the case of a governmental
plan). If the amendment is required to be made to retain
qualified status as a result of the changes in the bill (or
regulations) the amendment must be made retroactively
effective as of the date on which the change became effective
with respect to the plan and the plan must be operated in
compliance until the amendment is made. Amendments that are
not required to retain qualified status but that are made
pursuant to the changes made by the bill (or applicable
regulations) may be made retroactive as of the first day the
plan was operated in accordance with the amendment.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except
that the Senate amendment does not provide relief from the
prohibition on reductions of accrued benefits.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the House bill, with the
modification described below. As under the House bill, the
provision applies to plan amendments required to maintain
qualified status, as well as other amendments pursuant to the
provisions of the bill (or applicable regulations). A plan
amendment is not considered to be pursuant to the bill (or
applicable regulations) if it has an effective date before
the effective date of the provision of the bill (or
regulations) to which it relates. Similarly, the provision
does not provide relief from section 411(d)(6) for periods
prior to the effective date of the relevant provision of the
bill (or regulations) or the plan amendment.
The conference agreement provides that the Secretary is
given authority to provide exceptions to the relief from the
prohibition on reductions in accrued benefits. It is intended
that the Secretary will not permit inappropriate reductions
in contributions or benefits that are not directly related to
the provisions of the bill. For example, it is intended that
a plan that incorporates the section 415 limits by reference
could be retroactively amended to impose the section 415
limits in effect before the bill. On the other hand, suppose
a plan that incorporates the section 401(a)(17) limit on
compensation by reference provides for an employer
contribution of 3 percent of compensation. It is expected
that the Secretary would provide that the plan could not be
amended retroactively to reduce the contribution percentage,
even though the reduction will result in the same dollar
level of contributions for some participants because of the
increase in compensation taken into account under the plan.
As another example, suppose that under present law a plan is
top-heavy and therefore a minimum benefit is required under
the plan, and that under the provisions of the bill, the plan
would not be considered to be top heavy. It is expected that
the Secretary would generally permit plans to be
retroactively amended to reflect the new top-heavy provisions
of the bill.
TITLE V. INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND MODERNIZATION
(secs. 501-505 of the bill and secs. 103, 148, 1397E and new secs.
1397F and 1397G of the Code)
Present Law
Tax-exempt bonds
In general
Interest on debt incurred by States or local governments is
excluded from income if the proceeds of the borrowing are
used to carry out governmental functions of those entities or
the debt is repaid with governmental funds (sec. 103). Like
other activities carried out and paid for by States and local
governments, the construction, renovation, and operation of
public schools is an activity eligible for financing with the
proceeds of tax-exempt bonds.
Interest on bonds that nominally are issued by States or
local governments, but the proceeds of which are used
(directly or indirectly) by a private person and payment of
which is derived from funds of such a private person is
taxable unless the purpose of the borrowing is approved
specifically in the Code or in a non-Code provision of a
revenue Act. These bonds are called ``private activity
bonds.'' The term ``private person'' includes the Federal
Government and all other individuals and entities other than
States or local governments.
Private activities eligible for financing with tax-exempt
private activity bonds
The Code includes several exceptions permitting States or
local governments to act as conduits providing tax-exempt
financing for private activities. Both capital expenditures
and limited working capital expenditures of charitable
organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code--
including elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools--
may be financed with tax-exempt private activity bonds
(``qualified 501(c)(3) bonds'').
In most cases, the volume of tax-exempt private activity
bonds is restricted by aggregate annual limits imposed on
bonds issued by issuers within each State. These annual
volume limits equal $50 per resident of the State, or $150
million if greater. The annual State private activity bond
volume limits are scheduled to increase to the greater of $75
per resident of the State or $225 million in calendar year
2007. The increase will be phased in ratably beginning in
calendar year 2003.1 This increase was enacted by
the Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998. Qualified
501(c)(3) bonds are among the tax-exempt private activity
bonds that are not subject to these volume limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Another provision of the conference agreement accelerates
this increase in the volume limits in 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private activity tax-exempt bonds may not be used to
finance schools owned or operated by private, for-profit
businesses.
Arbitrage restrictions on tax-exempt bonds
The Federal income tax does not apply to income of States
and local governments that is derived from the exercise of an
essential governmental function. To prevent these tax-exempt
entities from issuing more Federally subsidized tax-exempt
bonds than is necessary for the activity being financed or
from issuing such bonds earlier than necessary, the Code
includes arbitrage restrictions limiting the ability to
profit from investment of tax-exempt bond proceeds. In
general, arbitrage profits may be earned only during
specified periods (e.g., defined ``temporary periods'')
before funds are needed for the purpose of the borrowing or
on specified types of investments (e.g., ``reasonably
required reserve or replacement funds''). Subject to limited
exceptions, investment profits that are earned during these
periods or on such investments must be rebated to the Federal
Government.
The Code includes three exceptions applicable to education-
related bonds. First, issuers of all types of tax-exempt
bonds are not required to rebate arbitrage profits if all of
the proceeds of the bonds are spent for the purpose of the
borrowing within six months after issuance. In the case of
governmental bonds (including bonds to finance public
schools) the six-month expenditure exception is treated as
satisfied if at least 95 percent of the proceeds is spent
within six months and the remaining five percent is spent
within 12 months after the bonds are issued.
Second, in the case of bonds to finance certain
construction activities, including school construction and
renovation, the six-month period is extended to 24 months for
construction proceeds. Arbitrage profits earned on
construction proceeds are not required to be rebated if all
such proceeds (other than certain retainage amounts) are
spent by the end of the 24-month period and prescribed
intermediate spending percentages are satisfied.
Third, governmental bonds issued by ``small'' governments
are not subject to the rebate requirement. Small governments
are defined as general purpose governmental units that issue
no more than $5 million of tax-exempt governmental bonds in a
calendar year. The $5 million limit is increased to $10
million if at least $5 million of the bonds are used to
finance public schools.
Another exception to the arbitrage restriction, enacted as
part of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, provides that the pledge
of income from investments in a Fund established under a
provision of a State constitution adopted in 1876 as security
for a limited amount of tax-exempt bonds will not cause
interest on those bonds to be taxable. The terms of this
exception are limited to State constitutional or statutory
restrictions in effect as of October 9, 1969. The Fund
consists of certain State lands that were set aside for the
benefit of higher education, the income from mineral rights
to these lands, and certain other earnings on Fund assets.
The State constitution directs that monies held in the Fund
are to be invested in interest-bearing obligations and other
securities. The State constitution does not permit the
expenditure or mortgage of the Fund for any purpose. Income
from the Fund is apportioned between two university systems
operated by the State. Tax-exempt bonds issued by the two
university systems are secured by and payable from the income
of the Fund. These bonds are used to finance buildings and
other permanent improvements for the universities.
The General Assembly of the State approved proposed
constitutional amendments regarding the manner in which
amounts in the Fund are paid for the benefit of the two
university systems. These amendments were voted on and passed
by the State's citizens in November 1999. The State
constitutional amendments have the effect of permitting the
Fund to make annual distributions similar to standard
university endowment funds, rather than the previous
practice, which tied distributions to annual income
performance, creating a variable pattern of distributions.
Since these amendments were not in effect as of October 9,
1969, the amendments eliminate the benefits of the 1984
exception from the tax-exempt bond arbitrage restrictions.
[[Page 24475]]
Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (``QZABs'')
As an alternative to traditional tax-exempt bonds, certain
States and local governments are given the authority to issue
``qualified zone academy bonds.'' Under present law, $400
million of qualified zone academy bonds may be issued per
year in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. The $400 million bond
authority is allocated each year among the States according
to their respective populations of individuals below the
poverty line. Each State, in turn, allocates the credit to
qualified zone academies within such State. A State may carry
over any unused allocation into subsequent years (the first
two years following the unused limitation year; three years
for carryforwards from 1998 or 1999).
To be a qualified zone academy bond, a bond must satisfy
several requirements. First, the bond must be issued pursuant
to an allocation of bond authority from the issuer's State
educational agency. Second, at least 95 percent of the bond
proceeds must be used for an eligible purpose at a qualified
zone academy. Eligible purposes include renovating school
facilities, acquiring equipment, developing course materials,
or training teachers. A qualified zone academy is a public
school (or an academic program within a public school) that
is designed in cooperation with business and is either (1)
located in an empowerment zone or enterprise community or (2)
attended by students at least 35 percent of whom are
estimated to be eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches
under the National School Lunch Act. Finally, private
businesses must have promised to contribute to the qualified
zone academy certain property or services with a present
value equal to at least 10 percent of the bond proceeds.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
Extension of authority to issue present-law QZABs
The conference agreement extends authority to issue QZABs
for two additional years, through December 31, 2003. Except
as described below, present-law requirements for these bonds
are retained.
Extension of modified QZAB authority to school construction
The conference agreement extends authority to issue QZABs,
with modifications, to public school construction. The
agreement authorizes issuance of up to $5 billion per year of
school construction QZABs in 2001, 2002, and 2003. The $5
billion of annual authority will be allocated to the States
(including the District of Columbia and U.S. possessions) by
the Treasury Department on the following basis: 50 percent of
the aggregate annual amount is allocated to the States based
on population and 50 percent is allocated based on the
portion of the State's population that lives in poverty.
These allocations are to be based on the most recently
available Census Bureau data. The State allocations are
subject to a ``small State floor'' of $25 million per State.
Unissued tax-credit bond authority may be carried forward
for up to two years. As is true under the current QZAB
allocation rules, bond authority is treated as allocated on a
``FIFO'' basis.
Subject to a special rule for certain larger school
districts, Governors are granted interim authority to
allocate their State's authorized school construction QZAB
issuance among school districts in the State unless State
legislatures prescribe different allocation rules. For larger
local school districts, defined as districts having school
age populations in excess of 40,000, the conference agreement
provides a minimum allocation (which cannot be overridden by
State action) in an amount equal to the percentage of the
State's total population that resides in the school district.
The term ``school age population'' is defined as children
ages five through seventeen.
In addition to the $5 billion general aggregate annual bond
authority, the conference agreement authorizes up to $200
million of school construction QZABs to be issued to finance
public schools operated by or for the benefit of Indian
tribes. This $200 million of additional authority is a one-
time authorization which may be allocated by the Treasury
Department among Indian tribes at any time during the five-
year period when school construction QZABs and present-law
QZABs may be issued. Both the allocation authority and the
authority to issue these bonds expires after December 31,
2005.
School construction is defined as capital expenditures for
new construction, renovation, or repair or public schools
(real property of a character subject to the allowance for
depreciation), including charter schools, and the acquisition
of functionally related and subordinate land. Unlike present-
law QZABs, contributions by private businesses are optional,
but not required, for schools receiving school construction
QZAB financing. Additionally, the school construction QZABs
are not limited to schools within an empowerment zone or
enterprise community, or to schools satisfying the free or
reduced-cost lunch criteria.
Rules applicable to QZABs issued after December 31, 2000 and
to school construction QZABs
The following administrative rules apply to QZABs issued
after December 31, 2000, and to the new modified QZABs for
school construction:
(1) The maximum term of the bonds is 15 years.
(2) Information reporting requirements similar to the
requirements that apply under present law to tax-exempt bonds
(sec. 149(e)) are extended to these bonds.
(3) Eligible recipients of the tax credits are expanded to
include all C corporations (but not S corporations or
individuals).
(4) Credits accrue to holders on a quarterly basis (rather
than annually as under the present-law QZAB program).
(5) Credit rates are set by reference to the daily
corporate rate index established by the Treasury Department,
and the credit rate for each bond issue is set as of the day
before the date the bonds are issued (i.e., sold).
(6) As under the present-law QZAB program, credits are
includible in the bondholder's gross income, but tax credits
may be claimed against both regular income tax and the
alternative minimum tax.
(7) All property financed with tax-credit bonds must be
owned by a State or local government. Further, all such
property must be used for a qualified public school purpose
during the entire period that the bonds are outstanding.
Failure to use the property for a qualified purpose results
in termination of tax credits beginning on the later of (a)
the date of bond issuance of (b) three years before the
change in use occurs. Issuers are obligated to pay the
Federal Government an amount equal to all credits accruing
after the stated date (plus interest); bondholders are
secondarily liable for this amount.
(8) Tax-credit bonds may not be issued to refinance any
outstanding debt except certain ``bridge financing,'' defined
as construction period financing that (a) is issued after the
date of the conference agreement's enactment; (b) has a term
not exceeding one year and (c) is issued for a project
identified for tax-credit bond financing before issuance of
the bridge financing.
(9) Arbitrage restrictions similar to those that apply to
tax-exempt bonds (as modified by the conference agreement)
are extended to present-law QZABs and school construction
QZABs.
Bond proceeds must be spent for the purpose of the
borrowing within 48 months after bonds are issued, with
intermediate spending requirements being prescribed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within Must spend at least
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 months................................. 10 percent
24 months................................. 30 percent
36 months................................. 60 percent
48 months................................. 100 percent (less present-
law retainage amounts (not
exceeding 5 percent) which
must be spent within 60
months)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issuers failing to satisfy the intermediate 12, 24, or 36-
month expenditure requirements must pay the Federal
Government an amount equal to the investment earnings on all
proceeds of the bond issue.
Issuers failing to satisfy the 48-month or 60-month
expenditure requirements must redeem an amount of bonds
having a face amount equal to the unspent proceeds.
A ``small governmental unit'' exception is provided to
these arbitrage restrictions. This exception is coordinated
with the present-law tax-exempt bond exception for these
units (as that exception is modified by the agreement) to
ensure that issuers do not claim double benefits.
Rules similar to the tax-exempt bond sinking fund
restrictions are extended to tax- credit bonds. Under these
rules, all replacement funds constituting a sinking fund
under the tax-exempt bond rules must be invested in non-
interest-bearing State and Local Government Series (``SLGS'')
obligations issued by the Treasury.
(10) A State must allocate its school construction QZAB
authority in accordance with a qualified allocation plan. A
qualified allocation plan is to contain, among other things:
(a) an identification of the State's needs for public school
facilities, and (b) a description of how the State will make
allocations to address those needs, including how the State
will ensure the needs of both rural, suburban, and urban
areas will be recognized, ensure that the needs of localities
with the greatest needs will be met and give priority to the
role of charter schools in achieving State educational
objectives. This requirement applies to allocations of tax-
credit bond authority made on the date that is six months
after the date the conference agreement is enacted.
Effective date.--These provisions apply to bonds issued in
calendar years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Increase in the amount of governmental bonds that may be
issued by governments qualifying for the ``small
governmental unit'' arbitrage rebate exception
The additional amount of governmental bonds for public
schools that small governmental units may issue without being
subject to the arbitrage rebate requirement is increased from
$5 million to $10 million. Thus, these governmental units may
issue up to $15 million of governmental bonds in a calendar
year provided that at least $10 million of the bonds are used
to finance public
[[Page 24476]]
school construction expenditures. This exception is
coordinated with the tax- credit bond exception for these
units to ensure that issuers do not claim double benefits,
i.e., both tax-credit bonds and tax-exempt bonds are taken
into account for purposes of this limitation.
Effective date.--The provision applies to bonds issued in
calendar years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Conform provisions relating to arbitrage treatment to reflect
state constitutional amendments
The conference agreement conforms the 1984 exception to the
State constitutional amendments to permit its continued
applicability to bonds of the two university systems.
Limitations on the aggregate amount of bonds which may
benefit from the exception are not modified.
Effective date.--The provision takes effect on January 1,
2001.
Construction bond expenditure rule for governmental bonds for
public schools
The present-law 24-month expenditure exception to the
arbitrage rebate requirement is liberalized for certain
public school bonds. Under the agreement, no rebate is
required with respect to earnings on available construction
proceeds of public school bonds if the proceeds are spent
within 48 months after the bonds are issued and the following
intermediate spending levels are satisfied:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within Must spend at least
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 months................................. 10 percent
24 months................................. 30 percent
36 months................................. 60 percent
48 months................................. 100 percent (less present-
law retainage amounts (not
exceeding 5 percent) which
must be spent within 60
months)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date.--The provision applies to bonds issued
after December 31, 2000.
Issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds for certain
public school facilities
The private activities for which tax-exempt bonds may be
issued are expanded to include elementary and secondary
public school facilities which are owned by private, for-
profit corporations pursuant to public-private partnership
agreements with a State or local educational agency. The term
school facility includes school buildings and functionally
related and subordinate land (including stadiums or other
athletic facilities primarily used for school events) and
depreciable personal property used in the school facility.
The school facilities for which these bonds are issued must
be operated by a public educational agency as part of a
system of public schools.
A public-private partnership agreement is defined as an
arrangement pursuant to which the for-profit corporate party
constructs, rehabilitates, refurbishes or equips a school
facility. The agreement must provide that, at the end of the
contract term, ownership of the bond-financed property is
transferred to the public school agency party to the
agreement for no additional consideration.
Issuance of these bonds is subject to a separate annual
per-State volume limit equal to the greater of $10 per
resident ($5 million, if greater) in lieu of the present-law
State private activity bond volume limits. As with the
present-law State private activity bond volume limits, States
decide how to allocate the bond authority to State and local
government agencies. Bond authority that is unused in the
year in which it arises may be carried forward for up to
three years for public school projects under rules similar to
the carryforward rules of the present-law private activity
bond volume limits.
Effective date.--These provisions are effective for bonds
issued after December 31, 2000.
TITLE VI. COMMUNITY RENEWAL PROVISIONS
A. Renewal Community Provisions (secs. 601-602 of the bill and secs.
51, 469, and new secs. 1400E-J of the Code)
Present Law
In recent years, provisions have been added to the Internal
Revenue Code that target specific geographic areas for
special Federal income tax treatment. For example,
empowerment zones and enterprise communities generally
provide tax incentives for businesses that locate within
certain geographic areas designated by the Secretaries of
Housing and Urban Development (``HUD'') and Agriculture.
House Bill
No provision. However, H.R. 4923, as passed by the House,
authorizes the designation of 40 ``renewal communities''
within which special tax incentives will be available. The
following is a description of the designation process and the
tax incentives that would be available within the renewal
communities.
Designation process
Designation of 40 renewal communities.--The Secretary of
HUD, 2 is authorized to designate up to 40
``renewal communities'' from areas nominated by States and
local governments. At least eight of the designated
communities must be in rural areas. The Secretary of HUD is
required to publish (within four months after enactment)
regulations describing the nomination and selection process.
Designations of renewal communities are to be made within 24
months after the regulations are published. The designation
of an area as a renewal community generally will be effective
on July 1, 2001, and will terminate after December 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In making the designations, the Secretary of HUD must
consult with the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor,
Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget; and the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration (and the Secretary of the Interior in the case
of an area on an Indian reservation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility criteria.--To be designated as a renewal
community, a nominated area must meet the following criteria:
(1) each census tract must have a poverty rate of at least 20
percent; 3 (2) in the case of an urban area, at
least 70 percent of the households have incomes below 80
percent of the median income of households within the local
government jurisdiction; (3) the unemployment rate is at
least 1.5 times the national unemployment rate; and (4) the
area is one of pervasive poverty, unemployment, and general
distress. Those areas with the highest average ranking of
eligibility factors (1), (2), and (3) above would be
designated as renewal communities. A nominated area within
the District of Columbia becomes a renewal community (without
regard to its ranking of eligibility factors) provided that
it satisfies the area and eligibility requirements and the
required State and local commitments described below.
4 The Secretary of HUD shall take into account in
selecting areas for designation the extent to which such
areas have a high incidence of crime, as well as whether the
area has census tracts identified in the May 12, 1998, report
of the General Accounting Office regarding the identification
of economically distressed areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Determined using 1990 census data.
\4\ The designation of a nominated area within the District
of Columbia as a renewal community becomes effective on
January 1, 2003 (upon the expiration of the designation of
the District of Columbia Enterprise Zone).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no geographic size limitations placed on renewal
communities. Instead, the boundary of a renewal community
must be continuous. In addition, the renewal community must
have a minimum population of 4,000 if the community is
located within a metropolitan statistical area (at least
1,000 in all other cases), and a maximum population of not
more than 200,000. The population limitations do not apply to
any renewal community that is entirely within an Indian
reservation.
Required State and local commitments.--In order for an area
to be designated as a renewal community, State and local
governments are required to submit a written course of action
in which the State and local governments promise to take at
least four of the following governmental actions within the
nominated area: (1) a reduction of tax rates or fees; (2) an
increase in the level of efficiency of local services; (3)
crime reduction strategies; (4) actions to remove or
streamline governmental requirements; (5) involvement by
private entities and community groups, such as to provide
jobs and job training and financial assistance; and (6) the
gift (or sale at below fair market value) of surplus realty
by the State or local government to community organizations
or private companies.
In addition, the nominating State and local governments
must promise to promote economic growth in the nominated area
by repealing or not enforcing four of the following: (1)
licensing requirements for occupations that do not ordinarily
require a professional degree; (2) zoning restrictions on
home-based businesses that do not create a public nuisance;
(3) permit requirements for street vendors who do not create
a public nuisance; (4) zoning or other restrictions that
impede the formation of schools or child care centers; and
(5) franchises or other restrictions on competition for
businesses providing public services, including but not
limited to taxicabs, jitneys, cable television, or trash
hauling, unless such regulations are necessary for and well-
tailored to the protection of health and safety.
Empowerment zones and enterprise communities seeking
designation as renewal communities.--An empowerment zone or
enterprise community can apply for designation as a renewal
community. If a renewal community designation is granted,
then an area's designation as an empowerment zone or
enterprise community ceases as of the date the area's
designation as a renewal community takes effect.
Tax incentives for renewal communities
Under H.R. 4923, the following tax incentives are available
during the period beginning July 1, 2001, and ending December
31, 2009.
Zero-percent capital gain rate.--H.R. 4923 provides a zero-
percent capital gains rate for gain from the sale of a
qualified community asset acquired after June 30, 2001, and
before January 1, 2010, and held for more than five years. A
``qualified community asset'' includes: (1) qualified
community stock (meaning original-issue stock purchased for
cash in a renewal community business); (2) a qualified
community partnership interest (meaning a partnership
interest acquired for cash in a renewal community business);
and (3) qualified community business property (meaning
tangible property originally used in a renewal community
business by the taxpayer) that is purchased or substantially
improved after June 30, 2001.
[[Page 24477]]
A ``renewal community business'' is similar to the present-
law definition of an enterprise zone business.5
Property will continue to be a qualified community asset if
sold (or otherwise transferred) to a subsequent purchaser,
provided that the property continues to represent an interest
in (or tangible property used in) a renewal community
business. The termination of an area's status as a renewal
community will not affect whether property is a qualified
community asset, but any gain attributable to the period
before July 1, 2001, or after December 31, 2014, will not be
eligible for the exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ An ``enterprise zone business'' is defined in section
1397B and is described in connection with the expansion of
the empowerment zone benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renewal community employment credit.-- Under H.R. 4923, a
15-percent wage credit is available to employers for the
first $10,000 of qualified wages paid to each employee who
(1) is a resident of the renewal community, and (2) performs
substantially all employment services within the renewal
community in a trade or business of the employer. The wage
credit rate applies to qualifying wages paid after June 30,
2001, and before January 1, 2010.
Wages that qualify for the credit are wages that are
considered ``qualified zone wages'' for purposes of the
empowerment zone wage credit (including coordination with the
Work Opportunity Tax Credit). In general, any taxable
business carrying out activities in the renewal community may
claim the wage credit.
Commercial revitalization deduction.--H.R. 4923 allows each
State to allocate up to $12 million of ``commercial
revitalization expenditures'' to each renewal community
located within the State for each calendar year after 2001
and before 2010 ($6 million for the period of July 1, 2001
through December 31, 2001). The appropriate State agency will
make the allocations pursuant to a qualified allocation plan.
A ``commercial revitalization expenditure'' means the cost
of a new building or the cost of substantially rehabilitating
an existing building. The building must be used for
commercial purposes and be located in a renewal community. In
the case of the rehabilitation of an existing building, the
cost of acquiring the building will be treated as qualifying
expenditures only to the extent that such costs do not exceed
30 percent of the other rehabilitation expenditures. The
qualifying expenditures for any building cannot exceed $10
million.
A taxpayer can elect either to (a) deduct one-half of the
commercial revitalization expenditures for the taxable year
the building is placed in service or (b) amortize all the
expenditures ratably over the 120-month period beginning with
the month the building is placed in service. No depreciation
is allowed for amounts deducted under this provision. The
adjusted basis is reduced by the amount of the commercial
revitalization deduction, and the deduction is treated as a
depreciation deduction in applying the depreciation recapture
rules (e.g., sec. 1250).
The commercial revitalization deduction is treated in the
same manner as the low-income housing credit in applying the
passive loss rules (sec. 469). Thus, up to $25,000 of
deductions (together with the other deductions and credits
not subject to the passive loss limitation by reason of
section 469(i)) are allowed to an individual taxpayer
regardless of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. The
commercial revitalization deduction is allowed in computing a
taxpayer's alternative minimum taxable income.
Additional section 179 expensing.--Under H.R. 4923, a
renewal community business is allowed an additional $35,000
of section 179 expensing for qualified renewal property
placed in service after June 30, 2001, and before January 1,
2010. The section 179 expensing allowed to a taxpayer is
phased out by the amount by which 50 percent of the cost of
qualified renewal property placed in service during the year
by the taxpayer exceeds $200,000. The term ``qualified
renewal property'' is similar to the definition of
``qualified zone property'' used in connection with
empowerment zones.
Expensing of environmental remediation costs
(``brownfields'').--Under H.R. 4923, a renewal community is
treated as a ``targeted area'' under section 198 (which
permits the expensing of environmental remediation costs).
Thus, taxpayers can elect to treat certain environmental
remediation expenditures that otherwise would be capitalized
as deductible in the year paid or incurred. This provision
applies to expenditures incurred after June 30, 2001, and
before January 1, 2010.
Extension of work opportunity tax credit (``WOTC'').--H.R.
4923 expands the high-risk youth and qualified summer youth
categories in the WOTC to include qualified individuals who
live in a renewal community.
Effective date.--Renewal communities must be designated
within 24 months after publication of regulations by HUD. The
tax benefits available in renewal communities are effective
for the period beginning July 1, 2001, and ending December
31, 2009.
senate amendment
No provision. However, S. 3152 authorizes the Secretaries
of HUD and Agriculture to designate up to 30 renewal zones
from areas nominated by States and local governments. At
least six of the designated renewal zones must be in rural
areas. The Secretary of HUD is required to publish (within
four months after enactment) regulations describing the
nomination and selection process. Designations of renewal
zones must be made before January 1, 2002, and the
designation are effective for the period beginning on January
1, 2002 through December 31, 2009.
The eligibility criteria (as well as the population and
geographic limitations) are similar to those for renewal
communities in the House bill, except that S. 3152 provides
that any State without any empowerment zone would be given
priority in the designation process. Also, the designations
of renewal zones must result in (after taking into account
existing empowerment zones) each State having at least one
zone designation (empowerment or renewal zone). In addition,
S. 3152 provides that, in lieu of the poverty, income, and
unemployment criteria, outmigration may be taken into account
in the designation of one rural renewal zone. Under a
separate provision in S. 3152, the designation of the
District of Columbia Enterprise Zone would be extended
through December 31, 2006.
In order for an area to be designated as a renewal zone,
State and local governments are required to submit a written
course of action in which the State and local governments
promise to take at least four of the governmental actions
described in H.R. 4923. However, S. 3152 does not contain any
of the economic growth provision requirements described in
connection with renewal communities.
Tax incentives for renewal zones.--Under S. 3152,
businesses in renewal zones would be eligible for the
following tax incentives during the period beginning January
1, 2002 and ending December 31, 2009: (1) a zero-percent
capital gains rate for qualifying assets limited to an
aggregate amount not to exceed $25 million of gain per
taxpayer;6 (2) a 15-percent wage credit for the
first $15,000 of qualifying wages; (3) $35,000 in additional
179 expensing for qualifying property; (4) and the enhanced
tax-exempt bond rules that currently apply to businesses in
the Round II empowerment zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Any gain attributable to the period before January 1,
2002, or after December 31, 2014, would not be eligible for
the zero-percent capital gains rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO report.--The General Accounting Office will audit and
report to Congress every three years (beginning on January
31, 2004) on the renewal zone program and its effect on
poverty, unemployment, and economic growth within the
designated renewal zones.
Effective date.--The 30 new renewal zones must be
designated by January 1, 2002, and the resulting tax benefits
are available for the period beginning January 1, 2002, and
ending December 31, 2009.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the provisions of H.R.
4923 with certain modifications to the designation process
for renewal communities. The conference agreement authorizes
the designation of 40 renewal communities, of which at least
12 must be in rural areas. Of the 12 rural renewal
communities, one shall be an area within Mississippi,
designated by the State of Mississippi, that includes at
least one census tract within Madison County, Mississippi.
The tax incentives are the same as those described in H.R.
4923--i.e., (1) a zero-percent capital gains rate for capital
gain from the sale of qualifying assets held for more than
five years; (2) a 15 percent wage credit to employers for the
first $10,000 of qualified wages paid to qualifying
employees; (3) a commercial revitalization expenditure; (4)
an additional $35,000 of section 179 expensing for qualified
renewal property; and (5) an expansion of the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit with respect to qualified individuals
who live in a renewal community.7 The 40 renewal
communities must be designated by January 1, 2002, and the
resulting tax benefits are available for the period beginning
January 1, 2002, and ending December 31, 2009.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Under the conference agreement, renewal communities are
not ``targeted areas'' for purposes of permitting expensing
of certain environmental remediation costs. Another provision
described below extends the brownfields provision for two
years and eliminates the targeted area requirement.
\8\ If a renewal community designation is terminated prior to
December 31, 2009, the tax incentives would cease to be
available as of the termination date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conference agreement provides that, with respect to the
first 20 designations of nominated areas as renewal
communities, preference will be given to nominated areas that
are enterprise communities and empowerment zones under
present law that otherwise meet the requirements for
designation as a renewal community.
The conference agreement includes the priority designation
with respect to the District of Columbia Enterprise Zone (as
contained in H.R. 4923). The conference agreement also
includes the provision from S. 3152 that, in lieu of the
poverty, income, and unemployment criteria, outmigration may
be taken into account in the designation of one rural renewal
community.
The General Accounting Office will audit and report to
Congress on January 31, 2004, and again in 2007 and 2010, on
the renewal community program and its effect on poverty,
unemployment, and economic growth within the designated
renewal communities.
[[Page 24478]]
Effective date.--The 40 renewal communities must be
designated by January 1, 2002, and the resulting tax benefits
will be available for the period beginning January 1, 2002,
and ending December 31, 2009.
B. Empowerment Zone Tax Incentives
1. Extension and expansion of empowerment zones (secs. 611-
615 of the bill and secs. 1391, 1394, 1396, and 1397A of
the Code)
present law
Round I empowerment zones
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (``OBRA
1993'') authorized the designation of nine empowerment zones
(``Round I empowerment zones'') to provide tax incentives for
businesses to locate within targeted areas designated by the
Secretaries of HUD and Agriculture. The Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 (``1997 Act'') authorized the designation of two
additional Round I urban empowerment zones.
Businesses in the 11 Round I empowerment zones qualify for
the following tax incentives: (1) a 20-percent wage credit
for the first $15,000 of wages paid to a zone resident who
works in the empowerment zone,9 (2) an additional
$20,000 of section 179 expensing for qualifying zone
property, and (3) tax-exempt financing for certain qualifying
zone facilities.10 The tax incentives with respect
to the empowerment zones designated by OBRA 1993 generally
are available during the 10-year period of 1995 through 2004.
The tax incentives with respect to the two additional Round I
empowerment zones generally are available during the 10-year
period of 2000 through 2009.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For wages paid in calendar years during the period 1994
through 2001, the credit rate is 20 percent. The credit rate
is reduced to 15 percent for calendar year 2002, 10 percent
for calendar year 2003, and 5 percent for calendar year 2004.
No wage credit is available after 2004 in the original nine
empowerment zones.
\10\ For purposes of these tax incentives, a qualifying
business does not include a trade or business consisting
predominantly of the development or holding of intangibles
for sale or license (sec. 1397B(d)(4)). While the provision
does not modify the definition of a qualifying business, the
sponsors of the legislation intend to review this issue.
\11\ Except for the wage credit, which is reduced to 15
percent for calendar year 2005, and then reduced by five
percentage points in each year in 2006 and 2007, with no wage
credit available after 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Round II empowerment zones
The 1997 Act also authorized the designation of 20
additional empowerment zones (``Round II empowerment
zones''), of which 15 are located in urban areas and five are
located in rural areas. Businesses in the Round II
empowerment zones are not eligible for the wage credit, but
are eligible to receive up to $20,000 of additional section
179 expensing. Businesses in the Round II empowerment zones
also are eligible for more generous tax-exempt financing
benefits than those available in the Round I empowerment
zones. Specifically, the tax-exempt financing benefits for
the Round II empowerment zones are not subject to the State
private activity bond volume caps (but are subject to
separate per-zone volume limitations), and the per-business
size limitations that apply to the Round I empowerment zones
and enterprise communities (i.e., $3 million for each
qualified enterprise zone business with a maximum of $20
million for each principal user for all zones and
communities) do not apply to qualifying bonds issued for
Round II empowerment zones. The tax incentives with respect
to the Round II empowerment zones generally are available
during the 10-year period of 1999 through 2008.
house bill
No provision. However, as described in greater detail
below, H.R. 4923 conforms and enhances the tax incentives for
the Round I and Round II empowerment zones and extends their
designations through December 31, 2009. H.R. 4923 also
authorizes the designation of nine new empowerment zones
(``Round III empowerment zones'').
Extension of tax incentives for Round I and Round II
empowerment zones
The designation of empowerment zone status for Round I and
II empowerment zones (other than the District of Columbia
Enterprise Zone) 12 is extended through December
31, 2009. In addition, the 20-percent wage credit is made
available in all Round I and II empowerment zones for
qualifying wages paid or incurred after December 31, 2001.
The credit rate remains at 20 percent (rather than being
phased down) through December 31, 2009, in Round I and Round
II empowerment zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As previously discussed, under H.R. 4923, the District
of Columbia Enterprise Zone is given a priority designation
as a renewal community effective January 1, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, $35,000 (rather than $20,000) of additional
section 179 expensing is available for qualified zone
property placed in service in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2001, by a qualified business in any of the
empowerment zones.13 Businesses in the D.C.
Enterprise Zone are entitled to the additional section 179
expensing until the termination of the D.C. zone
designation.14 The bill also extends an
empowerment zone's status as a ``targeted area'' under
section 198 (thus permitting expensing of environmental
remediation costs). The bill applies to expenses incurred
after December 31, 2001, and before January 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The additional $35,000 of section 179 expensing is
available throughout all areas that are part of a designated
empowerment zone, including the non-contiguous ``developable
sites'' that were allowed to be part of the designated Round
II empowerment zones under the 1997 Act.
\14\ The D.C. Enterprise Zone is scheduled to terminate on
December 31, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Businesses located in Round I empowerment zones (other than
the D.C. Enterprise Zone) 15 also are eligible for
the more generous tax-exempt bond rules that apply under
present law to businesses in the Round II empowerment zones
(sec. 1394(f)). The bill applies to tax-exempt bonds issued
after December 31, 2001. Bonds that have been issued by
businesses in Round I zones before January 1, 2002, are not
taken into account in applying the limitations on the amount
of new empowerment zone facility bonds that can be issued
under the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The present-law rules of sections 1394 and 1400A
continue to apply with respect to the D.C. Enterprise Zone
through its scheduled expiration of December 31, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nine new empowerment zones
The Secretaries of HUD and Agriculture are authorized to
designate nine additional empowerment zones (``Round III
empowerment zones''). Seven of the Round III empowerment
zones will be located in urban areas, and two will be located
in rural areas.
The eligibility and selection criteria for the Round III
empowerment zones are the same as the criteria that applied
to the Round II empowerment zones. The Round III empowerment
zones must be designated by January 1, 2002, and the tax
incentives with respect to the Round III empowerment zones
generally are available during the period beginning on
January 1, 2002, and ending on December 31, 2009.
Businesses in the Round III empowerment zones are eligible
for the same tax incentives that, under the bill, are
available to Round I and Round II empowerment zones (i.e., a
20-percent wage credit, an additional $35,000 of section 179
expensing, and the enhanced tax-exempt financing benefits
presently available to Round II empowerment zones). The Round
III empowerment zones also are considered ``targeted areas''
for purposes of permitting expensing of certain environmental
remediation costs under section 198.
Effective date
The extension of the existing empowerment zone designations
is effective after the date of enactment. The extension of
the tax benefits to existing empowerment zones (i.e., the
expanded wage credit, the additional section 179 expensing,
the brownfields designation, and the more generous tax-exempt
bond rules) generally is effective after December 31, 2001.
The new Round III empowerment zones must be designated by
January 1, 2002, and the tax incentives with respect to the
Round III empowerment zones generally are available during
the period beginning on January 1, 2002, and ending on
December 31, 2009.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, S. 3152 contains a provision that
conforms and enhances incentives for existing empowerment
zones. Specifically, the provision extends the designation of
empowerment zone status for Round I and II empowerment zones
through December 31, 2009. In addition, a 15-percent wage
credit is made available in all Round I and II empowerment
zones, effective in 2002 (except in the case of the two
additional Round I empowerment zones added by the 1997 Act,
for which the 15-percent wage credit takes effect in 2005 as
scheduled under present law). For all the empowerment zones,
the 15-percent wage credit expires on December 31, 2009.
In addition, $35,000 (rather than $20,000) of additional
section 179 expensing is available for qualified zone
property placed in service in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2001, by a qualified business in any of the
empowerment zones.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The additional $35,000 of section 179 expensing is
available throughout all areas that are part of a designated
empowerment zone, including the non-contiguous ``developable
sites'' that were allowed to be part of the designated Round
II empowerment zones under the 1997 Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under S. 3152, businesses located in Round I empowerment
zones are eligible for the more generous tax-exempt bond
rules that apply under present law to businesses in the Round
II empowerment zones (sec. 1394(f)). The proposal applies to
tax-exempt bonds issued after December 31, 2001. Bonds that
have been issued by businesses in Round I zones before
January 1, 2002, are not taken into account in applying the
limitations on the amount of new empowerment zone facility
bonds that can be issued under the provision.
Businesses located in any empowerment zone also qualify for
a zero-percent capital gains rate for gain from the sale of a
qualifying zone assets acquired after date of enactment and
before January 1, 2010, and held for more than five years.
Assets that qualify for this incentive are similar to the
types of assets that qualify for the present-law zero percent
capital gains rate for qualifying D.C. Zone assets. The zero-
percent capital gains rate is limited to an aggregate amount
not to exceed $25 million of gain per taxpayer. Gain
attributable to the period before the date of enactment or
after December 31, 2014, is not eligible for the zero-percent
rate.
[[Page 24479]]
Effective date.--The extension of the existing empowerment
zone designations is effective after the date of enactment.
The additional section 179 expensing and the more generous
tax-exempt bond rules for the existing empowerment zones is
effective after December 31, 2001. The zero-percent capital
gains rate applies to qualifying property purchased after the
date of enactment. The 15-percent wage credit generally is
effective for qualifying wages paid after December 31, 2001.
With respect to the two additional Round I empowerment zones,
however, the wage credit is effective for qualifying wages
paid after December 31, 2004.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the provisions in H.R.
4923 with the following modifications. The conference
agreement does not extend the empowerment zones' status as a
``targeted area'' for purposes of permitting expensing of
certain environmental remediation costs under section
198.17 In addition, the conference agreement
provides that the General Accounting Office will audit and
report to Congress on January 31, 2004, and again in 2007 and
2010, on the empowerment zone and enterprise community
program and its effect on poverty, unemployment, and economic
growth within the designated areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Another provision described below extends the
brownfields provision for two years and eliminates the
targeted area requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Rollover of gain from the sale of qualified empowerment
zone investments (sec. 616 of the bill and new sec. 1397B
of the Code)
present law
In general, gain or loss is recognized on any sale,
exchange, or other disposition of property. A taxpayer (other
than a corporation) may elect to roll over without payment of
tax any capital gain realized upon the sale of qualified
small business stock held for more than six months where the
taxpayer uses the proceeds to purchase other qualified small
business stock within 60 days of the sale of the original
stock.
house bill
No provision. However, under H.R. 4923, a taxpayer can
elect to roll over capital gain from the sale or exchange of
any qualified empowerment zone asset purchased after the date
of enactment and held for more than one year (``original zone
asset'') where the taxpayer uses the proceeds to purchase
other qualifying empowerment zone assets in the same zone
(``replacement zone asset'') within 60 days of the sale of
the original zone asset. The holding period of the
replacement zone asset includes the holding period of the
original zone asset, except that the replacement asset must
actually be held for more than one year to qualify for
another tax-free rollover. The basis of the replacement zone
asset is reduced by the gain not recognized on the rollover.
However, if the replacement zone asset is qualified small
business stock (as defined in sec. 1202), the exclusion under
section 1202 would not apply to gain accrued on the original
zone asset.18 A ``qualified empowerment zone
asset'' means an asset that would be a qualified community
asset if the empowerment zone were a renewal community (and
the asset is acquired after the date of enactment of the
bill). Assets in the D.C. Enterprise Zone are not eligible
for the tax-free rollover treatment.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See section 1045 for rollover of qualified small
business stock to other small business stock.
\19\ However, a qualifying D.C. Zone asset held for more than
five years is eligible for a 100-percent capital gains
exclusion (sec. 1400B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date.--The provision is effective for qualifying
assets purchased after the date of enactment.
senate amendment
No provision.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the provision in H.R.
4923.
3. Increased exclusion of gain from the sale of qualifying
empowerment zone stock (sec. 617 of the bill and sec.
1202 of the Code)
present law
Under present law, an individual, subject to limitations,
may exclude 50 percent of the gain 20 from the
sale of qualifying small business stock held more than five
years (sec. 1202).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The portion of the capital gain included in income is
subject to a maximum regular tax rate of 28 percent, and 42
percent of the excluded gain is a minimum tax preference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
house bill
No provision. However, H.R. 4923 includes a provision that
would increase the exclusion for small business stock to 60
percent for stock purchased after the date of enactment in a
corporation that is a qualified business entity and that is
held for more than five years. A ``qualified business
entity'' means a corporation that satisfies the requirements
of a qualifying business under the empowerment zone rules
during substantially all the taxpayer's holding period.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for qualified
stock purchased after the date of enactment.
senate amendment
No provision.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the provision in H.R.
4923.
C. New Markets Tax Credit (sec. 621 of the bill and new sec. 45D of the
Code)
present law
Some tax incentives are available to taxpayers making
investments and loans in low-income communities. For example,
tax incentives are available to taxpayers that invest in
specialized small business investment companies licensed by
the Small Business Administration to make loans to, or equity
investments in, small businesses owned by persons who are
socially or economically disadvantaged.
house bill
No provision. However, H.R. 4923 includes a provision that
creates a new tax credit for qualified equity investments
made to acquire stock in a selected community development
entity (``CDE''). The maximum annual amount of qualifying
equity investments is capped as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar Year Maximum qualifying equity investment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.............................. $1.0 billion
2002-2003......................... 1.5 billion per year
2004-2005......................... 2.0 billion per year
2006-2007......................... 3.5 billion per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of the new tax credit to the investor (either
the original purchaser or a subsequent holder) is (1) a five-
percent credit for the year in which the equity interest is
purchased from the CDE and the first two anniversary dates
after the interest is purchased from the CDE, and (2) a six
percent credit on each anniversary date thereafter for the
following four years.21 The taxpayer's basis in
the investment is reduced by the amount of the credit (other
than for purposes of calculating the capital gain exclusion
under sections 1202, 1400B, and 1400F). The credit is subject
to the general business credit rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Thus, a credit would be available on the date on which
the investment is made and for each of the six anniversary
dates thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A CDE is any domestic corporation or partnership (1) whose
primary mission is serving or providing investment capital
for low-income communities or low-income persons, (2) that
maintains accountability to residents of low-income
communities through representation on governing or advisory
boards, or otherwise and (3) is certified by the Treasury
Department as an eligible CDE.22 No later than 60
days after enactment, the Treasury Department shall issue
regulations that specify objective criteria to be used by the
Treasury to allocate the credits among eligible CDEs. In
allocating the credits, the Treasury Department will give
priority to entities with records of having successfully
provided capital or technical assistance to disadvantaged
businesses or communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ A specialized small business investment company and a
community development financial institution are treated as
satisfying the requirements for a CDE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a CDE fails to sell equity interests to investors up to
the amount authorized within five years of the authorization,
then the remaining authorization is canceled. The Treasury
Department can authorize another CDE to issue equity
interests for the unused portion. No authorization can be
made after 2014.
A ``qualified equity investment'' is defined as stock or a
similar equity interest acquired directly from a CDE in
exchange for cash. Substantially all of the investment
proceeds must be used by the CDE to make ``qualified low-
income community investments,'' meaning equity investments
in, or loans to, qualified active businesses located in low-
income communities, certain financial counseling and other
services specified in regulations to businesses and residents
in low-income communities.23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ If at least 85 percent of the aggregate gross assets of
the CDE are invested (directly or indirectly) in equity
interests in, or loans to, qualified active businesses
located in low-income communities, then there would be no
need to trace the use of the proceeds from the particular
stock (or other equity ownership) issuance with respect to
which the credit is claimed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stock or equity interest cannot be redeemed (or
otherwise cashed out) by the CDE for at least seven years. If
an entity fails to be a CDE during the seven-year period
following the taxpayer's investment, or if the equity
interest is redeemed by the issuing CDE during that seven-
year period, then any credits claimed with respect to the
equity interest are recaptured (with interest) and no further
credits are allowed.
A ``low-income community'' is defined as census tracts with
either (1) poverty rates of at least 20 percent (based on the
most recent census data), or (2) median family income which
does not exceed 80 percent of the greater of metropolitan
area income or statewide median family income (for a non-
metropolitan census tract, 80 percent of non-metropolitan
statewide median family income).
A ``qualified active business'' is defined as a business
which satisfies the following requirements: (1) at least 50
percent of the total gross income of the business is derived
from the active conduct of trade or business activities in
low-income communities; (2) a substantial portion of the use
of the tangible property of such business is used within low-
[[Page 24480]]
income communities; (3) a substantial portion of the services
performed for such business by its employees is performed in
low-income communities; and (4) less than 5 percent of the
average aggregate of unadjusted bases of the property of such
business is attributable to certain financial property or to
collectibles (other than collectibles held for sale to
customers). There is no requirement that employees of the
business be residents of the low-income community.
Rental of improved commercial real estate located in a low-
income community is a qualified active business, regardless
of the characteristics of the commercial tenants of the
property. The purchase and holding of unimproved real estate
is not a qualified active business. In addition, a qualified
active business does not include (a) any business consisting
predominantly of the development or holding of intangibles
for sale or license; (b) operation of any facility described
in sec. 144(c)(6)(B); or (c) any business if a significant
equity interest in such business is held by a person who also
holds a significant equity interest in the CDE. A qualified
active business can include an organization that is organized
on a non-profit basis.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for qualified
investments made after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, S. 3152 includes a provision that
creates a new markets tax credit that is similar to the
provision in H.R. 4923. Under S. 3152, the maximum annual
amount of qualifying equity investments is capped as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calendar year Maximum qualifying equity investment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.............................. $1.0 billion
2003-2006......................... $1.5 billion per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 3152 defines a CDE in the same manner as in H.R. 4923,
except that the accountability requirement is clarified to
provide that the CDE must maintain accountability to
residents of low- income communities through the
representation of the residents on governing or advisory
boards of the CDE. No later than 120 days after enactment,
the Treasury Department will issue guidance that specifies
objective criteria to be used by the Treasury to allocate the
credits among eligible CDEs. In allocating the credits, the
Treasury Department will give priority to entities with
records of having successfully provided capital or technical
assistance to disadvantaged businesses or communities,
24 as well as to entities that intend to invest
substantially all of the proceeds they receive from their
investors in businesses in which persons unrelated to the CDE
hold the majority equity interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ A record of having successfully provided capital or
technical assistance to disadvantaged businesses or
communities could be demonstrated by the past actions of the
CDE itself or an affiliate (e.g., in the case where a new CDE
is established by a nonprofit organization with a history of
providing assistance to disadvantaged communities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under S. 3152, if a CDE fails to sell equity interests to
investors up to the amount authorized within five years of
the authorization, then the remaining authorization is
canceled. The Treasury Department can authorize another CDE
to issue equity interests for the unused portion. No
authorization can be made after 2013.
Substantially all of the investment proceeds must be used
by the CDE to make ``qualified low-income community
investments.'' Qualified low-income community investments
include: (1) capital or equity investments in, or loans to,
qualified active businesses located in low- income
communities, 25 (2) certain financial counseling
and other services specified in regulations to businesses and
residents in low-income communities, (3) the purchase from
another CDE of any loan made by such entity that is a
qualified low income community investment, or (4) an equity
investment in, or loans to, another CDE. 26
Treasury Department regulations will provide guidance with
respect to the ``substantially all'' standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Thus, a qualified low-income community investment may
include an investment in a qualifying business in which the
CDE (or a related party) holds a significant interest.
However, as previously mentioned, in allocating the credits
among eligible CDEs, the Treasury Department will give
priority to CDEs that intend to invest substantially all of
the proceeds they receive from their investors in businesses
in which persons unrelated to the CDE hold the majority of
the equity interest. For purposes of this provision, persons
are related to each other if they are described in sections
267(b) or 707(b)(1).
\26\ If at least 85 percent of the aggregate gross assets of
the CDE are invested (directly or indirectly) in equity
interests in, or loans to, qualified active businesses
located in low-income communities, then there would be no
need to trace the use of the proceeds from the particular
stock (or other equity ownership) issuance with respect to
which the credit is claimed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition of a ``low-income community'' is the same as
in H.R. 4923, except that under S. 3152, the Secretary may
designate any area within any census tract as a ``low income
community'' provided that (1) the boundary of the area is
continuous, 27 (2) the area (if it were a census
tract) would satisfy the poverty rate or median income
requirements set forth above 28 within the
targeted area, and (3) an inadequate access to investment
capital exists in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ It is intended that the continuous boundary that
delineates the portion of the census tract as a ``low-income
community'' should be a pre-existing boundary (such as an
established neighborhood, political, or geographic boundary).
\28\ A low-income community is defined as census tracts with
either (1) poverty rates of at least 20 percent (based on the
most recent census data), or (2) median family income which
does not exceed 80 percent of the greater of metropolitan
area income or statewide median family income (for a non-
metropolitan census tract, 80 percent of non-metropolitan
statewide median family income).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition of a ``qualified active business'' is the
same as in H.R. 4923, except that S. 3152 clarifies that a
qualified active business can include an organization that is
organized on a non-profit basis.
The General Accounting Office will audit and report to
Congress by January 31, 2004 (and again by January 31, 2007)
on the new markets tax credit program, including on all
qualified community development entities that receive an
allocation under the new markets tax credit.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for qualified
investments made after December 31, 2001.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows H.R. 4923 with some
modifications.
The definition of a CDE includes the clarification in S.
3152 regarding the accountability requirement, as well as the
priority allocation to CDEs with records of having
successfully provided capital or technical assistance to
disadvantaged businesses or communities, 29 as
well as to entities that intend to invest substantially all
of their investment proceeds in businesses in which persons
unrelated to the CDE hold the majority equity interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ A record of having successfully provided capital or
technical assistance to disadvantaged businesses or
communities could be demonstrated by the past actions of the
CDE itself or an affiliate (e.g., in the case where a new CDE
is established by a nonprofit organization with a history of
providing assistance to disadvantaged communities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conference agreement adopts S. 3152's definitions of
``qualified low-income community investment'' (which permits
investments in related businesses) and ``low-income
community'' (which provides discretion to designate targeted
population areas). In addition, the definition of a
``qualified active business'' includes an organization that
is organized on a non-profit basis.
Under the conference agreement, the General Accounting
Office will audit and report to Congress by January 31, 2004,
and again in 2007 and 2010, on the new markets tax credit
program, including on all qualified community development
entities that receive an allocation under the new markets tax
credit program.
D. Increase the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Cap and Make Other
Modifications (secs. 631-637 of the bill and sec. 42 of the Code)
Present Law
In general
The low-income housing tax credit may be claimed over a 10-
year period for the cost of rental housing occupied by
tenants having incomes below specified levels. The credit
percentage for newly constructed or substantially
rehabilitated housing that is not Federally subsidized is
adjusted monthly by the Internal Revenue Service so that the
10 annual installments have a present value of 70 percent of
the total qualified expenditures. The credit percentage for
new substantially rehabilitated housing that is Federally
subsidized and for existing housing that is substantially
rehabilitated is calculated to have a present value of 30
percent qualified expenditures.
Credit cap
The aggregate credit authority provided annually to each
State is $1.25 per resident, except in the case of projects
that also receive financing with proceeds of tax-exempt bonds
issued subject to the private activity bond volume limit and
certain carry-over amounts,
Expenditure test
Generally, the building must be placed in service in the
year in which it receives an allocation to qualify for the
credit. An exception is provided in the case where the
taxpayer has expended an amount equal to 10-percent or more
of the taxpayer's reasonably expected basis in the building
by the end of the calendar year in which the allocation is
received and certain other requirements are met.
Basis of building eligible for the credit
Buildings receiving assistance under the HOME investment
partnerships act (``HOME'') are not eligible for the enhanced
credit for buildings located in high cost areas (i.e.,
qualified census tracts and difficult development areas).
Under the enhanced credit, the 70-percent and 30-percent
credit are increased to a 91-percent and 39-percent credit,
respectfully.
Eligible basis is generally limited to the portion of the
building used by qualified low- income tenants for
residential living and some common areas.
State allocation plans
Each State must develop a plan for allocating credits and
such plan must include
[[Page 24481]]
certain allocation criteria including: (1) project location;
(2) housing needs characteristics; (3) project
characteristics; (4) sponsor characteristics; (5)
participation of local tax-exempts; (6) tenant populations
with special needs; and (7) public housing waiting lists. The
State allocation plan must also give preference to housing
projects: (1) that serve the lowest income tenants; and (2)
that are obligated to serve qualified tenants for the longest
periods.
Credit administration
There are no explicit requirements that housing credit
agencies perform a comprehensive market study of the housing
needs of the low-income individuals in the area to be served
by the project, nor that such agency conduct site visits to
monitor for compliance with habitability standards.
Stacking rule
Authority to allocate credits remains at the State (as
opposed to local) government level unless State law provides
otherwise. 30 Generally, credits may be allocated
only from volume authority arising during the calendar year
in which the building is placed in service, except in the
case of: (1) credits claimed on additions to qualified basis;
(2) credits allocated in a later year pursuant to an earlier
binding commitment made no later than the year in which the
building is placed in service; and (3) carryover allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ For example, constitutional home rule cities in Illinois
are guaranteed their proportionate share of the $1.25 amount,
based on their population relative to that of the State as a
whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each State annually receives low-income housing credit
authority equal to $1.25 per State resident for allocation to
qualified low-income projects. 31 In addition to
this $1.25 per resident amount, each State's ``housing credit
ceiling'' includes the following amounts: (1) the unused
State housing credit ceiling (if any) of such State for the
preceding calendar year; 32 (2) the amount of the
State housing credit ceiling (if any) returned in the
calendar year; 33 and (3) the amount of the
national pool (if any) allocated to such State by the
Treasury Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ A State's population, for these purposes, is the most
recent estimate of the State's population released by the
Bureau of the Census before the beginning of the year to
which the limitation applies. Also, for these purposes, the
District of Columbia and the U.S. possessions (i.e., Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Marianas and
American Samoa) are treated as States.
\32\ The unused State housing credit ceiling is the amount
(if positive) of the previous year's annual credit limitation
plus credit returns less the credit actually allocated in
that year.
\33\ Credit returns are the sum of any amounts allocated to
projects within a State which fail to become a qualified low-
income housing project within the allowable time period plus
any amounts allocated to a project within a State under an
allocation which is canceled by mutual consent of the housing
credit agency and the allocation recipient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national pool consists of States' unused housing credit
carryovers. For each State, the unused housing credit
carryover for a calendar year consists of the excess (if any)
of the unused State housing credit ceiling for such year over
the excess (if any) of the aggregate housing credit dollar
amount allocated for such year over the sum of $1.25 per
resident and the credit returns for such year. The amounts in
the national pool are allocated only to a State which
allocated its entire housing credit ceiling for the preceding
calendar year, and requested a share in the national pool not
later than May 1 of the calendar year. The national pool
allocation to qualified States is made on a pro rata basis
equivalent to the fraction that a State's population enjoys
relative to the total population of all qualified States for
that year.
The present-law stacking rule provides that a State is
treated as using its annual allocation of credit authority
($1.25 per State resident) and any returns during the
calendar year followed by any unused credits carried forward
from the preceding year's credit ceiling and finally any
applicable allocations from the National pool.
House Bill
Credit cap
No provision. However, H.R. 4923 increases the $1.25 per
capita cap to $1.75 per capita. This increase is phased-in
over six years. Also, beginning in 2001 the per capita cap
for each State is modified so that small population State are
given a minimum of $2 million of annual credit cap. Therefore
the credit cap would be the greater of: $1.35 per capita or
$2 million in calendar year 2001; $1.45 per capita or $2
million in calendar 2002; $1.55 per capita or $2 million in
calendar year 2003; $1.65 per capita or $2 million in
calendar year 2004; $1.70 per capita or $2 million in
calendar year 2005; and $1.75 per capita or $2 million in
calendar year 2006. The $1.75 per capita credit cap and $2
million amount are indexed for inflation beginning in 2007.
Expenditure test
The provisions of H.R. 4923 allow a building which receives
an allocation in the second half of a calendar to qualify
under the 10-percent test if the taxpayer expends an amount
equal to 10-percent or more of the taxpayer's reasonably
expected basis in the building within six months of receiving
the allocation regardless of whether the 10-percent test is
met by the end of the calendar year.
Basis of building eligible for the credit
The provisions of H.R. 4923 make three changes to the basis
rules of the credit. First, the definition of qualified
census tracts for purposes of the enhanced credit is expanded
to include any census tracts with a poverty rate of 25
percent or more. Second, H.R. 4923 extends the credit to a
portion of the building used as a community service facility
not in excess of 10 percent of the total eligible basis in
the building. A community service facility is defined as any
facility designed to serve primarily individuals whose income
is 60 percent or less of area median income. Third, H.R. 4923
provides that assistance received under the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 is not
taken into account in determining whether a building is
Federally subsidized for purposes of the credit. This allows
such buildings to qualify for something other than the 30-
percent credit generally applicable to Federally subsidized
buildings.
State allocation plans
The provisions of H.R. 4923 strikes the plan criteria
relating to participation of local tax- exempts, replacing it
with two other criteria: tenant populations of individuals
with children and projects intended for eventual tenant
ownership. It also provides that the present-law criteria
relating to sponsor characteristics include whether the
project involves the use of existing housing as part of a
community revitalization plan. Also, H.R. 4923 adds a third
category of housing projects to the preferential list. That
third category is for projects located in qualified census
tracts which contribute to a concerted community
revitalization plan.
Credit administration
The provisions of H.R. 4923 require a comprehensive market
study of the housing needs of the low-income individuals in
the area to be served by the project and a written
explanation available to the general public for any
allocation not made in accordance with the established
priorities and selection criteria of the housing credit
agency. They also require site inspections by the housing
credit agency to monitor compliance with habitability
standards applicable to the project.
Stacking rule
The provisions of H.R. 4923 modify the stacking rule so
that each State would be treated as using its allocation of
the unused State housing credit ceiling (if any) from the
preceding calendar before the current year's allocation of
credit (including any credits returned to the State) and then
finally any National pool allocations.
Effective date
In general, H.R. 4923 is effective for calendar years
beginning after December 31, 2000, and buildings placed-in-
service after such date in the case of projects that also
receive financing with proceeds of tax-exempt bonds subject
to the private activity bond volume limit which are issued
after such date. The increase and indexing of the credit cap
is effective for calendar years after December 31, 2000.
Senate Amendment
Credit cap
No provision. However, S. 3152 increases the annual State
credit caps from $1.25 to $1.75 per resident beginning in
2001. Also, beginning in 2001 the per capita cap for each
State is modified so that small population State are given a
minimum of $2 million of annual credit cap. The $1.75 per
capita cap and the $2 million amount are indexed for
inflation beginning in calendar 2002.
Expenditure test
No provision.
Basis of building eligible for the credit
The provision in S. 3152 relating to the treatment of
buildings receiving assistance under the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 is the
same as one of the provisions in H.R. 4923. The other
provisions in H.R. 4923 relating to the basis of building
eligible for the credit are not part of S. 3152.
State allocation plans
No provision.
Credit administration
No provision.
Stacking rule
The provision of H.R. 4923 is included in S. 3152.
Effective date
The provisions are effective for calendar years beginning
after December 31, 2000 and buildings placed-in-service after
such date in the case of projects that also receive financing
with proceeds of tax-exempt bonds which are issued after such
date subject to the private activity bond volume limit.
Conference Agreement
Credit cap
The conference agreement follows the provisions of H.R.
4923 and S. 3152 with a modification increasing the per-
capita low-income housing credit cap from $1.25 per capita to
$1.50 per capita in calendar year 2001 and to $1.75 per
capita in calendar year 2002. Beginning in calendar year
2003, the per-capita
[[Page 24482]]
portion of the credit cap will be adjusted annually for
inflation. For small States, a minimum annual cap of $2
million is provided for calendar years 2001 and 2002.
Beginning in calendar year 2003, the small State minimum is
adjusted for inflation.
Expenditure test
The conference agreement follows the provision of H.R.
4923.
Basis of building eligible for the credit
The conference agreement includes all three of the changes
to the credit basis rules included in H.R. 4923.
State allocation plans
The conference agreement includes the provision of H.R.
4923.
Credit administration
The conference agreement includes the provision of H.R.
4923.
Stacking rule
The conference agreement follows the provisions of H.R.
4923 and the S. 3152.
Effective date
The provision is generally effective for calendar years
beginning after December 31, 2000, and buildings placed-in-
service after such date in the case of projects that also
receive financing with proceeds of tax-exempt bonds subject
to the private activity bond volume limit which are issued
after such date.
E. Accelerate Scheduled Increase in State Volume Limits on Tax-Exempt
Private Activity Bonds (sec. 651 of the bill and sec. 146 of the Code)
Present Law
Interest on bonds issued by States and local governments is
excluded from income if the proceeds of the bonds are used to
finance activities conducted and paid for by the governmental
units (sec. 103). Interest on bonds issued by these
governmental units to finance activities carried out and paid
for by private persons (``private activity bonds'') is
taxable unless the activities are specified in the Internal
Revenue Code. Private activity bonds on which interest may be
tax-exempt include bonds for privately operated
transportation facilities (airports, docks and wharves, mass
transit, and high speed rail facilities), privately owned
and/or provided municipal services (water, sewer, solid waste
disposal, and certain electric and heating facilities),
economic development (small manufacturing facilities and
redevelopment in economically depressed areas), and certain
social programs (low-income rental housing, qualified
mortgage bonds, student loan bonds, and exempt activities of
charitable organizations described in sec. 501(c)(3)).
The volume of tax-exempt private activity bonds that States
and local governments may issue for most of these purposes in
each calendar year is limited by State-wide volume limits.
The current annual volume limits are $50 per resident of the
State or $150 million if greater. The volume limits do not
apply to private activity bonds to finance airports, docks
and wharves, certain governmentally owned, but privately
operated solid waste disposal facilities, certain high speed
rail facilities, and to certain types of private activity
tax-exempt bonds that are subject to other limits on their
volume (qualified veterans' mortgage bonds and certain
``new'' empowerment zone and enterprise community bonds).
The current annual volume limits that apply to private
activity tax-exempt bonds increase to $75 per resident of
each State or $225 million, if greater, beginning in calendar
year 2007. The increase is, ratably phased in, beginning with
$55 per capita or $165 million, if greater, in calendar year
2003.
House Bill
No provision. However, H.R. 4923 accelerates the scheduled
increase in the present-law annual State private activity
bond volume limits to $75 per resident of each State, or $225
million (if greater) beginning in calendar year 2007. The
increase is phased in as follows, beginning in calendar year
2001:
Calendar year Volume limit
2001..................................... $55 per resident ($165
million if greater)
2002..................................... $60 per resident ($180
million if greater)
2003..................................... $65 per resident ($195
million if greater)
2004, 2005, and 2006..................... $70 per resident ($210
million if greater)
2007 and thereafter...................... $75 per resident ($225
million if greater)
Effective date.--The provision is effective beginning in
calendar year 2001 and is fully effective in calendar year
2007 and thereafter.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, S. 3152 increases the present-law
annual State private activity bond volume limits to $75 per
resident of each State or $225 million (if greater) beginning
in calendar year 2001. In addition, the $75 per resident and
the $225 million State limit will be indexed for inflation
beginning in calendar year 2002.
Effective date.--The provisions are effective in calender
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the provisions of H.R.
4923 and S. 3152 with a modification increasing the State
volume limits from the greater of $50 per resident or $150
million to the greater of $62.50 per resident or $187.5
million in calendar year 2001. The volume limit will increase
further, to the greater of $75 per resident or $225 million
in calendar year 2002. Beginning in calendar year 2003, the
volume limit will be adjusted annually for inflation.
F. Extension and Modification to Expensing of Environmental Remediation
Costs (sec. 652 of the bill and sec. 198 of the Code)
Present Law
Taxpayers can elect to treat certain environmental
remediation expenditures that would otherwise be chargeable
to capital account as deductible in the year paid or incurred
(sec. 198). The deduction applies for both regular and
alternative minimum tax purposes. The expenditure must be
incurred in connection with the abatement or control of
hazardous substances at a qualified contaminated site.
A ``qualified contaminated site'' generally is any property
that (1) is held for use in a trade or business, for the
production of income, or as inventory; (2) is certified by
the appropriate State environmental agency to be located
within a targeted area; and (3) contains (or potentially
contains) a hazardous substance (so-called ``brownfields'').
Targeted areas are defined as: (1) empowerment zones and
enterprise communities as designated under present law; (2)
sites announced before February 1997, as being subject to one
of the 76 Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'')
Brownfields Pilots; (3) any population census tract with a
poverty rate of 20 percent or more; and (4) certain
industrial and commercial areas that are adjacent to tracts
described in (3) above. However, sites that are identified on
the national priorities list under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 cannot qualify as targeted areas.
Eligible expenditures are those paid or incurred before
January 1, 2002.
House Bill
No provision. However, H.R. 4923 as passed by the House
extends an empowerment zone's status as a ``targeted area''
under section 198. In addition, H.R. 4923 provides that
renewal communities (as defined in H.R. 4923) also constitute
a ``targeted area'' under section 198.34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Also see provisions above relating to empowerment zones
and renewal communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date.--The provision is effective for
expenditures incurred after June 30, 2001, and before January
1, 2010.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, S. 3152 extends the expiration date
for eligible expenditures to include those paid or incurred
before January 1, 2004.
In addition, S. 3152 eliminates the targeted area
requirement, thereby, expanding eligible sites to include any
site containing (or potentially containing) a hazardous
substance that is certified by the appropriate State
environmental agency. However, expenditures undertaken at
sites that are identified on the national priorities list
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 would continue to not qualify as
eligible expenditures.
Effective date.--The provision to extend the expiration
date is effective upon the date of enactment. The provision
to expand the class of eligible sites is effective for
expenditures paid or incurred after the date of enactment.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows S. 3152. By extending and
expanding section 198, the conferees do not intend to
displace the general tax law principle regarding expensing
versus capitalization of expenditures which continues to
apply to environmental remediation efforts not specifically
covered under section 198.
G. Extension of District of Columbia Homebuyer Tax Credit (Sec. 653 of
the bill and Sec. 1400C of the Code)
present law
First-time homebuyers of a principal residence in the
District of Columbia are eligible for a nonrefundable tax
credit of up to $5,000 of the amount of the purchase price.
The $5,000 maximum credit applies both to individuals and
married couples. Married individuals filing separately can
claim a maximum credit of $2,500 each. The credit phases out
for individual taxpayers with adjusted gross income between
$70,000 and $90,000 ($110,000-$130,000 for joint filers). For
purposes of eligibility, ``first-time homebuyer'' means any
individual if such individual did not have a present
ownership interest in a principal residence in the District
of Columbia in the one year period ending on the date of the
purchase of the residence to which the credit applies. The
credit is scheduled to expire for residences purchased after
December 31, 2001.
house bill
No provision.
senate amendment
No provision. However, S. 3152 includes a provision that
extends the first-time homebuyer credit for two years,
through December 31, 2003. The provision also extends the
[[Page 24483]]
phase-out range for married individuals filing a joint return
so that it is twice that of individuals. Thus, under the
provision, the District of Columbia homebuyer credit is
phased out for joint filers with adjusted gross income
between $140,000 and $180,000.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the provision in S. 3152
with respect to the extension of the first-time homebuyer
credit for two years (through December 31, 2003). The
conference agreement does not include the provision regarding
the phase-out range.
TITLE VII. ADMINISTRATIVE, MISCELLANEOUS, AND TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
PROVISIONS
Subtitle A. Administrative Provisions
A. Exempt Certain Reports From Elimination Under the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (sec. 701 of the bill)
present law
Section 303 of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset
Act of 1995 eliminates many periodic Federal reporting
requirements, effective May 15, 2000.
house bill
No provision.
senate amendment
No provision.
conference agreement
The conference agreement exempts certain reports from
elimination and sunset pursuant to the Federal Reports
Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995.
B. Extension of Deadlines for IRS Compliance with Certain Notice
Requirements (sec. 702 of the bill, secs. 6631 and 6751(a) of the Code)
present law
The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act
of 1998 (``IRS Restructuring Act of 1998'') imposed several
notice requirements relating to penalties, interest and
installment agreements. Section 6715 of the Code, added by
section 3306 of the IRS Restructuring Act of 1998, requires
that each notice imposing a penalty include the name of the
penalty, the Code section under which the penalty is imposed,
and a computation of the penalty.35 This
requirement applies to notices issued, and penalties
assessed, after December 31, 2000.36
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Sec. 6715(a).
\36\ P.L. 105-206, sec. 3306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6631 of the Code, added by section 3308 of the IRS
Restructuring Act of 1998, requires that every IRS notice
sent to an individual taxpayer that includes an amount of
interest required to be paid by the taxpayer also include a
detailed computation of the interest charged and a citation
to the Code section under which such interest is imposed. The
provision is effective for notices issued after December 31,
2000.
Section 3506 of the IRS Restructuring Act of 1998 requires
the IRS to send every taxpayer in an installment agreement an
annual statement of the initial balance owed, the payments
made during the year, and the remaining balance. The
provision became effective on July 1, 2000.
house bill
No provision.
senate amendment
No provision.
conference agreement
It is the understanding of the conferees that due to the
need for substantial systems modifications, and Year 2000
programming priorities, the IRS will be unable to fully
comply with certain notice requirements in accordance with
deadlines imposed by the IRS Restructuring Act of 1998. The
conference agreement extends the deadlines for complying with
the penalty, interest, and installment agreement notice
requirements. Specifically, the annual installment agreement
notice requirement is extended from July 1, 2000, to
September 1, 2001. The deadlines for complying with the
notice requirements relating to the computation of penalties
and interest 37 are both extended to June 30,
2001. In addition, for penalty notices issued after June 30,
2001, and before July 1, 2003, the notice requirements will
be treated as met if the notice contains a telephone number
at which the taxpayer can request a copy of the taxpayer's
assessment and payment history with respect to such penalty.
Similarly, for interest notices issued after June 30, 2001,
and before July 1, 2003, the notice requirements will be
treated as met if such notice contains a telephone number at
which the taxpayer can request a copy of the taxpayer's
payment history relating to interest amounts included in such
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Secs. 6715(a) and 6631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
C. Extension of Authority for Undercover Operations (sec. 703 of the
bill and sec. 7608 of the Code)
present law
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 exempted IRS undercover
operations from the otherwise applicable statutory
restrictions controlling the use of Government funds (which
generally provide that all receipts must be deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury and all expenses be paid out of
appropriated funds). In general, the exemption permits the
IRS to ``churn'' the income earned by an undercover operation
to pay additional expenses incurred in the undercover
operation. The IRS is required to conduct a detailed
financial audit of large undercover operations in which the
IRS is churning funds and to provide an annual audit report
to the Congress on all such large undercover operations. The
exemption originally expired on December 31, 1989, and was
extended by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990 to
December 31, 1991. In the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II (Public
Law 104-168), the authority to churn funds from undercover
operations was extended for five years, through 2000.
house bill
No provision.
senate amendment
No provision.
conference agreement
The conference agreement extends the authority of the IRS
to ``churn'' the income earned from undercover operations for
an additional five years, through 2005.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
D. Competent Authority and Pre-Filing Agreements (sec. 704 of the bill
and secs. 6103, 6110, and new sec. 6105 of the Code)
Present Law
Section 6103
Section 6103 of the Code sets forth the general rule that
returns and return information are confidential. A return is
any tax return, information return, declaration of estimated
tax, or claim for refund filed under the Code on behalf of or
with respect to any person. The term return also includes any
amendment or supplement, including supporting schedules or
attachments or lists, which are supplemental to or are part
of a filed return. Return information is defined broadly. It
includes the following information:
A taxpayer's identity, the nature, source or amount of
income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits,
assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld,
deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments;
Whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be
examined or subject to other investigation or processing;
Any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared by,
furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a
return or with respect to the determination of the existence,
or possible existence, of liability (or the amount thereof)
of any person under this title for any tax, penalty,
interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition, or offense;
\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Sec. 6103(b)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any part of any written determination or any background
file document relating to such written determination which is
not open to public inspection under section 6110; \39\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Sec. 6103(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any advance pricing agreement entered into by a taxpayer
and the Secretary and any background information related to
the agreement or any application for an advance pricing
agreement.
The term ``return information'' does not include data in a
form that cannot be associated with or otherwise identify,
directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer.
Secrecy of information exchanged under tax treaties
U.S. tax treaties typically contain articles governing the
exchange of information. These articles generally provide for
the exchange of information between the tax authorities of
the two countries when such information is necessary for
carrying out provisions of the treaty or of the countries'
domestic tax laws. Individuals referred to as ``competent
authorities'' are designated by each country to make written
requests for information and to receive information.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The U.S. competent authority is the Secretary of the
Treasury or his delegate. The U.S. competent authority
function has been delegated to the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, who has redelegated the authority to the Director,
International. On interpretive issues, the latter acts with
the concurrence of the Associate Chief Counsel
(International) of the IRS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exchange of information articles typically cover
information relating to taxes to which the treaty applies,
but can also apply to other taxes (e.g., excise taxes) not
covered by the treaty. Many of the treaties permit the
exchange of information even if the taxpayer involved is not
a resident of one of the treaty countries. The exchange of
information articles may be similar to, or represent a
variation on, Article 26 of the 1996 U.S. model income tax
treaty.
Information that is received under the exchange of
information articles is subject to secrecy clauses contained
in the treaties. In this regard, the country requesting
information under the treaties typically is required to treat
any information received as secret in the same manner as
information obtained under its domestic laws. In general,
disclosure is not permitted other than to persons
[[Page 24484]]
or authorities involved in the administration, assessment,
collection or enforcement of taxes to which the treaty
applies. For example, disclosure generally can be made to
legislative bodies, such as the tax-writing committees of the
Congress, and the General Accounting Office for purposes of
overseeing the administration of U.S. tax laws.
In addition to the exchange of information articles in U.S.
tax treaties, exchange of information provisions are
contained in tax information exchange agreements entered into
between the United States and another country.\41\ In
addition, information may be exchanged pursuant to the
Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters
developed by the Council of Europe and the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (the ``Multilateral
Mutual Assistance Convention''), which limits the use of
exchanged information and permits disclosure of such
information only with the prior authorization of the
competent authority of the country providing the information.
\42\ The United States has also entered into a number of
implementation and coordination agreements with possessions
that provide for the exchange of tax information. Moreover,
the United States has entered into various mutual legal
assistance treaties with other countries, some of which can
be used to obtain tax information in criminal investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Sections 274(h)(6)(C) and 927(e)(3) specifically provide
the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to enter into tax
information exchange agreements. This eliminates the need for
Senate ratification, which is required for a tax treaty. In
addition, all tax information exchange agreements are
required to include specific non-disclosure provisions which
provide that ``information received by either country will be
disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts
and administrative bodies) involved in the administration or
oversight of, or in the determination of appeals in respect
of, taxes of the United States, or the beneficiary country
and will be used by such persons or authorities only for such
purposes.''
Sec. 274(h)(6)(C)(i).
\42\ The U.S. Senate ratified the Multilateral Mutual
Assistance Convention, subject to certain reservations, in
September 1990. The Multilateral Mutual Assistance Convention
entered into force on April 1, 1995, and has been signed by
the following countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the confidentiality provisions of section 6103, as
well as treaty secrecy provisions can cover return
information.
Section 6110 and section 7121
Section 6110 of the Code provides for disclosure of written
determinations. With certain exceptions, section 6110 makes
the text of any written determination the Internal Revenue
Service (``IRS'') issues available for public inspection. A
written determination is any ruling, determination letter,
technical advice memorandum, or Chief Counsel advice. The IRS
is required to redact certain material before making these
documents publicly available. 43 Among the
information to be redacted is information specifically
exempted from disclosure by any statute (other than Title 26)
that is applicable to the IRS. Once the IRS makes the written
determination publicly available, the background file
documents associated with such written determination are
available for public inspection upon written request. Section
6110 defines ``background file documents'' as any written
material submitted by the taxpayer or other requester in
support of the request. Background file documents also
include any communications between the IRS and persons
outside the IRS concerning such written determination that
occur before the IRS issues the determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ For rulings, determination letters and technical advice
memoranda, section 6110(c) provides the following exemptions
from disclosure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the names, addresses, and other identifying details of
the person to whom the written determination pertains and of
any other person, other than a person with respect to whom a
notation is made under subsection (d)(1) (relating to third
party contacts), identified in the written determination or
any background file document;
(2) information specifically authorized under criteria
established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the
interest of national defense or foreign policy, and which is
in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
(3) information specifically exempted from disclosure by
any statute (other than [Title 26]) which is applicable to
the Internal Revenue Service;
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information
obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(5) information the disclosure of which would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(6) information contained in or related to examination,
operating, or condition reports prepared by, or on behalf of,
or for use of an agency responsible for the regulation or
supervision of financial institutions; and (7) geological and
geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning
wells.
For Chief Counsel Advice, paragraphs 2 through 7 do not
apply, however, material may be deleted in accordance with
subsections (b) and (c) of the FOIA (except that in applying
Exemption 3 of the FOIA, no statutory provision of the Code
is to be taken into account.) See sec. 6110(i)(3).
Section 6110 was added to the Code in 1976. The legislative
history provided that a written determination would not be
considered a ruling, technical advice memorandum, or
determination letter, unless the document satisfies three
criteria:
(1) The document recites the relevant facts;
(2) The document explains the applicable provisions of law;
and
(3) The document shows the application of law to the
facts.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ H.R. Rep. 94'658, at 315 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legislative history further provided that section 6110
`` does not require public disclosure of a closing agreement
entered into between the IRS and a taxpayer which finally
determines the taxpayer's tax liability with respect to a
taxable year'Your committee understands that a closing
agreement is generally the result of a negotiated settlement
and, as such, does not necessarily represent the IRS view of
the law. Your committee intends, however, that the closing
agreement exception is not to be used as a means of avoiding
public disclosure of determinations which, under present
practice, would be issued in a form which would be open to
public inspection [under the bill].'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Id. at 316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closing agreements are entered into under the authority of
section 7121. Closing agreements finally and conclusively
settle a tax issue between the IRS and a taxpayer. Closing
agreements may: (1) determine a taxpayer's entire tax
liability for a previous tax period; or (2) fix the tax
treatment of one or more specific items affecting tax
liability for any tax period. Thus, closing agreements may
settle the treatment of a specific item for periods ending
after the execution of the agreement. A single closing
agreement may cover both the determination of a taxpayer's
entire tax liability for a previous tax period and fix the
tax treatment of specific items for any tax period.
Freedom of Information Act
The Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA''), enacted in 1966,
established a statutory right to access government
information. While the purpose of section 6103 is to restrict
access to returns and return information, the basic purpose
of the FOIA is to ensure that the public has access to
government documents. In general, the FOIA provides that any
person has a right of access to Federal agency records,
except to the extent that such records (or portions thereof)
are protected from disclosure by one of nine exemptions or by
one of three special law enforcement record exclusions.
Exemption 3 of the FOIA allows the withholding of information
prohibited from disclosure by another statute if certain
requirements are met.\46\ The right of access is enforceable
in court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pending FOIA requests and litigation involving IRS records
Records covered by treaty secrecy clauses
A publisher of tax related material and commentary has made
a FOIA request for the disclosure of competent authority
agreements. The request has been pending since March 14,
2000.\47\ The IRS has not denied the request, nor has it
produced any documents responsive to the request. At this
time, no suit has been filed to compel disclosure of these
documents, although such a suit may be brought in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The initial FOIA request of March 14, 2000, covered all
competent authority agreements executed for the United States
from January 1, 1990, to date. In response to a request from
the Department of Treasury, by letter dated April 17, 2000,
the FOIA request was narrowed to cover competent authority
agreements executed between 1997 and 1999. The right to
pursue the 1990 through 1996 agreements, however, was
reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with a separate request, the IRS was sued
under the FOIA to compel disclosure of Field Service Advice
memoranda (``FSAs'').\48\ FSAs are prepared by attorneys in
the IRS National Office of the Office of Chief Counsel. They
are prepared in response to requests from IRS field personnel
for legal guidance, usually with respect to issues relating
to a particular taxpayer. FSAs usually contain a statement of
issues, facts, legal analysis and conclusions. The primary
purpose of FSAs is to ensure that IRS field personnel apply
the law correctly and uniformly. The D.C. Circuit determined
that FSAs are subject to disclosure. However, the court
remanded the case to district court to address assertions of
privilege, including those based on treaty secrecy. A
decision on this issue by the district court is still
pending.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Tax Analysts v. IRS, 117 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
\49\ Tax Analysts v. IRS, No. 94-CV-923 (GK) (D.D.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-filing agreements
On February 11, 2000, the IRS issued Notice 2000-12, in
which the IRS established a pilot program for ``Pre-filing
Agreements.'' Under this program, large businesses may
request a review and resolution of specific issues relating
to tax returns they expect to file between September and
December of 2000. The purpose of the program is to enable
taxpayers and the IRS to resolve issues that are likely to be
disputed in post-filing audits. Examples of such issues
include: (1) asset valuation and the allocation of a
business's
[[Page 24485]]
purchase or sale price among the assets acquired or sold; (2)
the identification and documentation of hedging transactions;
and (3) the determination of ``market'' for taxpayers using
the lower of cost or market method of inventory valuation in
situations involving inactive markets. The program is
intended to address issues for which the law is settled.
In Notice 2000-12, the IRS stated that pre-filing
agreements are closing agreements entered into pursuant to
section 7121. As such, the notice provides that the
information generated or received by the IRS during the pre-
filing agreement process constitutes return information. The
notice further provides that pre-filing agreements are not
written determinations as defined in section 6110, nor are
they subject to disclosure under the FOIA.
Several pre-filing agreements have been completed. A FOIA
request for these agreements has not been made.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The provision affirms that closing and similar agreements,
and information exchanged and agreements reached pursuant to
a tax treaty, are confidential. Further, the provision
clarifies that such protected documents are not to be
disclosed under the FOIA or section 6110.
Clarification that return information includes closing
agreements and similar dispute resolution agreements
Protection for closing agreements, pre-filing agreements
and similar agreements not containing an exposition of
the tax law
The bill provides that agreements entered into under
section 7121 or similar agreements are confidential return
information. Similar agreements are intended to include
negotiated agreements that (1) are the result of an
alternative dispute resolution or dispute avoidance process
relating to liability of any person under the Code for any
tax, penalty, interest, fine or forfeiture or other
imposition or offense and (2) do not establish, set forth, or
resolve the government's interpretation of the relevant tax
law. This is not meant to preclude citation, or repetition
of, the Code, Treasury regulations, or other published rules.
It is intended that pre-filing agreements be covered by
this provision. It is the understanding of the conferees that
pre-filing agreements do not explain the applicable
provisions of law or otherwise contain any exposition of the
tax law or the position of the IRS. In addition, it is not
intended that the closing and similar agreement exception be
used as a means of avoiding public disclosure of
determinations that, under present law, would be issued in a
form that would be open to public inspection. Thus, technical
advice memoranda, chief counsel advice or other material
clearly available to the public under present law section
6110, would not be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the
fact that such material is contained in a background file for
a closing agreement. For example, if a revenue agent seeks
technical advice in connection with a pre-filing agreement,
such technical advice would remain subject to the
requirements of section 6110. Since the pre-filing agreement
program involves only settled issues of law, it is the
understanding of the conferees that documents of this nature
generally would not be generated in the pre-filing agreement
process.
The provision is not intended to foreclose the disclosure
of tax-exempt organization closing agreements to the extent
such disclosure is authorized under section
6104.50 Since section 6103 permits the disclosure
of return information as authorized by Title 26, a disclosure
authorized by section 6104 is permissible, notwithstanding
the fact that a closing agreement is return information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The D.C. Circuit recently remanded to the district court
for factual development the issue of whether the closing
agreement in that case was submitted in support of an
exemption application, and therefore, subject to disclosure
under section 6104. Tax Analysts v. IRS, 214 F.3d 179 (D.C.
Cir 2000), vacating and remanding 99-2 U.S.T.C. (CCH) 794
(D.D.C. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report on pre-filing agreement program
It is intended that the Secretary make publicly available
an annual report relating to the pe-filing agreement program
operations for the preceding calendar year. The annual
reporting requirement is for five years, or the duration of
the program, whichever is shorter. The report is to include
(1) the number of pre-filing agreements completed, (2) the
number of applications received, (3) the number of
applications withdrawn, (4) the types of issues which are
resolved by completed agreements, (5) whether the program is
being utilized by taxpayers who were previously subject to
audit by the IRS, (6) the average length of time required to
complete an agreement, (7) the number, if any, and subject of
technical advice and chief counsel advice memoranda issued to
address issues arising in connection with any pre-filing
agreement, (8) any model agreements,51 and (9) any
other information the Secretary deems appropriate. The first
report, covering the calendar year 2000, is to be issued no
later than March 30, 2001. The information required for the
annual report is subject to the restrictions of section 6103.
Therefore, the Secretary will disclose information only in a
form that cannot be associated with or otherwise identify,
directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer. The Joint
Committee on Taxation periodically may review pre-filing
agreements to determine whether they contain legal
interpretations that should be disclosed to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See e.g., Appendix A of Rev. Proc. 2000-38 which is a
model ``Closing Agreement on Final Determination Covering
Specific Matters'' regarding method of accounting for
distributor commissions. Rev. Proc. 2000-38, 2000-40 I.R.B.
314-315 (October 2, 2000). That model agreement does not
identify any particular taxpayer but sets forth the substance
of the agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification that information protected by treaty is
confidential
Protection for agreements and information exchanged
pursuant to tax treaty
The provision adds a new Code section 6105, which provides
that tax convention information, with limited exceptions,
cannot be disclosed. Thus, the provision confirms that
agreements concluded under, and information received pursuant
to, a tax convention are confidential and can only be
disclosed as provided in such tax convention.
Under the provision, a tax convention is defined to include
any income tax or gift and estate tax convention, or any
other convention or bilateral agreement (including
multilateral conventions and agreements and any agreement
with a possession of the United States) providing for the
avoidance of double taxation, the prevention of fiscal
evasion, nondiscrimination with respect to taxes, the
exchange of tax relevant information with the United States,
or mutual assistance in tax matters.
It is the understanding of the conferees that competent
authority agreements (also referred to as mutual agreements)
generally do not contain an explanation of the law or
application of law to facts. Instead, such agreements are
negotiated arrangements to resolve issues of double taxation.
Thus, the term tax convention information for purposes of the
provision includes: (1) any agreement entered into with the
competent authority of one or more foreign governments
pursuant to a tax convention; (2) an application for relief
under a tax convention (sought by either a taxpayer or
another competent authority); (3) any background information
related to such agreement or application; (4) documents
implementing such agreement; and (5) any other information
exchanged pursuant to a tax convention that is treated as
confidential or secret under such tax convention. The
conferees intend that tax convention information would
include documents and any other information that reflects tax
convention information, including the association of a
particular treaty partner with a specific issue or matter.
The general rule that tax convention information cannot be
disclosed does not apply to the disclosure of tax convention
information to persons or authorities (including courts and
administrative bodies) that are entitled to disclosure under
the tax convention. It also does not apply to any generally
applicable procedural rules regarding applications for relief
under a tax convention. This exception is intended to ensure
that there is no restriction on the release by the Secretary
of publicly available procedural rules concerning matters
such as how or when to make a request for competent authority
assistance. Thus, certain material generated by IRS, i.e.,
its Competent Authority procedures (primarily reflected in
Rev. Proc. 96-13), or similar material produced by a treaty
partner (for example, an Information Circular produced and
published by the Canadian tax authority) may be made
available to the public. The general rule does not apply to
the disclosure of information not relating to a particular
taxpayer if, after consultation with the parties to a tax
convention, the Secretary determines that such disclosure
would not impair tax administration. This is consistent with
current practice. An example of a general agreement that
could be disclosed under this provision is the agreement
between the competent authorities of Mexico and the United
States regarding the maquiladora industry. That agreement,
which was not taxpayer specific, was publicized by press
release IR-INT-1999-13. The conferees intend that the
``impairment of tax administration'' for purposes of this
provision include, but not be limited to, the release of
documents that would adversely affect the working
relationship of the treaty partners. Under the provision,
except as otherwise provided, taxpayer- specific tax
convention information could not be publicly disclosed, even
if it would not impair tax administration.
A taxpayer-specific competent authority agreement that
relates to the existence or possible existence of liability
(or amount thereof) of any person for any tax, penalty,
interest, fine, forfeiture, or other imposition or offense
under the Code is return information under section 6103. It
is also an agreement pursuant to a tax convention under
section 6105. Return information, including taxpayer-specific
competent authority agreements, remains subject to the
confidentiality provisions of section 6103. Thus, civil and
criminal penalties for the unauthorized
[[Page 24486]]
disclosure of returns and return information continue to
apply to return information that is also covered by section
6105. However, tax convention information that is return
information may only be disclosed to the extent provided in,
and subject to the terms and conditions of, the relevant tax
convention.
Interaction with FOIA and section 6110
Under the provision, closing agreements and similar
agreements would not be considered written determinations for
purposes of section 6110 and, thus, would not be subject to
public disclosure. Such agreements would be defined as return
information under section 6103 and, therefore, such documents
would be protected from disclosure pursuant to Exemption 3 of
the FOIA in conjunction with section 6103.
In addition, under the provision, section 6110 would not
apply to material covered by section 6105. In the litigation
over FSAs, there has been some dispute as to whether treaties
qualify as statutes for purposes of withholding information
pursuant to Exemption 3 of the FOIA. The conferees believe
that treaties are the equivalent of statutes for purposes of
Exemption 3 of the FOIA. Section 6105 satisfies Exemption 3
of the FOIA. Taxpayer-specific tax convention information
concerning a taxpayer's tax liability, such as taxpayer-
specific competent authority agreements, would be exempt from
the FOIA as both return information under section 6103 and
information protected from disclosure by tax convention under
section 6105. Agreements not relating to a particular
taxpayer, and other tax convention information related to
such agreements, could be disclosed under FOIA if it is
determined that the disclosure would not impair tax
administration.
Effective Date
The provision applies to disclosures on, or after, the date
of enactment, and thus, applies to all documents in existence
on, or created after, the date of enactment.
E. Increase Joint Committee on Taxation Refund Review Threshold to $2
Million (Sec. 705 of the Bill and Sec. 6405 of the Code)
Present Law
No refund or credit in excess of $1,000,000 of any income
tax, estate or gift tax, or certain other specified taxes,
may be made until 30 days after the date a report on the
refund is provided to the Joint Committee on Taxation (sec.
6405). A report is also required in the case of certain
tentative refunds. Additionally, the staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation conducts post-audit reviews of large
deficiency cases and other select issues.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement increases the threshold above
which refunds must be submitted to the Joint Committee on
Taxation for review from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. The staff
of the Joint Committee on Taxation would continue to exercise
its existing statutory authority to conduct a program of
expanded post-audit reviews of large deficiency cases and
other select issues, and the IRS is expected to cooperate
fully in this expanded program.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment, except that the higher threshold does not apply to
a refund or credit with respect to which a report was made
before the date of enactment.
F. Clarifying the Allowance of Certain Tax Benefits With Respect to
Kidnapped Children (sec. 706 of the bill and secs. 2, 24, 32, and 151
of the Code)
Present Law
The Code generally requires that a taxpayer provide over
one-half of the support for each individual claimed as that
taxpayer's dependent. Similarly, the child credit, the
surviving spouse filing status, and the head of household
filing status require that a taxpayer satisfy certain
requirements with regard to individuals that qualify as the
taxpayer's dependent(s). Finally, the earned income credit
for taxpayers with qualifying children generally is available
only if the taxpayer has the same principal place of abode
for more than one-half the taxable year with an otherwise
qualifying child.
Recently published IRS guidance first denied a dependency
exemption to certain taxpayers with kidnapped children (TAM
200034029), then allowed such tax benefits to such taxpayers
(TAM 200038059).
House Bill
No provision. However, H.R. 5117 clarifies that the
dependency exemption, the child credit, the surviving spouse
filing status, the head of household filing status, and the
earned income credit are available to an otherwise qualifying
taxpayer with respect to a child who is presumed by law
enforcement authorities to have been kidnapped by someone who
is not a member of the family of such child or the taxpayer.
Generally, this treatment continues for all taxable years
ending during the period that the child is kidnapped.
However, this treatment ends for the taxable year ending
after the calender year in which it is determined that the
child is dead (or, if earlier, in which the child would have
attained age 18).
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years ending after the date of enactment.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the provision of H.R.
5117.
G. Conforming Changes to Accommodate Reduced Issuances of Certain
Treasury Securities (sec. 707 of the bill and sec. 995(f)(4) of the
Code)
Present Law
Code section 995(f)(4) dealing with the interest charge on
the deferred tax liability of the shareholders of a domestic
international sales corporation provides that the interest
rate be determined by reference to the average investment
yield on United States Treasury bills with maturities of 52
weeks. In addition, provisions of Federal law relating to
interest on monetary judgments in civil cases recovered in
Federal district court and on a judgment against the United
States affirmed by the Supreme Court (Title 28), interest on
certain unpaid criminal fines and penalties (Title 18), and
interest on compensation for certain takings of property
(Title 40) determine the applicable interest rate by
reference to 52-week Treasury bills.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conferees understand that, as a result of prior
Congressional efforts at budgetary control, current and
projected Federal budget surpluses are reducing the need of
the Treasury Department to issue certain securities. The
Treasury Department has informed the Congress that on grounds
of efficient debt management, and predictability and
liquidity for the financial markets, the Treasury Department
has announced it is likely to cease issuing 52-week Treasury
bills. The conference agreement modifies the Code (sec.
995(f)(4)) and certain other parts of Federal law relating to
interest on monetary judgments in civil cases recovered in
Federal district court and on a judgment against the United
States affirmed by the Supreme Court (Title 28), interest on
certain unpaid criminal fines and penalties (Title 18), and
interest on compensation for certain takings of property
(Title 40) that make specific reference to yields on 52-week
Treasury bills. The conference agreement generally replaces
the reference to 52-week Treasury bills with a reference to
the weekly average one-year constant maturity Treasury yield,
as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.
Effective date.--The provision is effective upon the date
of enactment.
H. Authorization of Agencies to Use Corrected Consumer Price Index
(sec. 708 of the bill)
Present Law
Code section 1(f) provides for adjustments in the tax
tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases.
Numerous other provisions of the Code are indexed as well.
Section 1(f) provides that inflation is measured by changes
in the consumer price index (``CPI'') for the preceding year
as published by the Department of Labor compared to the CPI
for the calendar year 1992. Section 1(f) directs the
Secretary to publish tables with applicable tax rates based
upon calculated inflation adjustments by December 15 of the
year before the year to which the tables are to apply.
In addition, payments made under Social Security, certain
Federal employee retirement programs, and certain payments to
individuals under various welfare and income support programs
are adjusted annually by changes in the CPI.
On September 28, 2000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(``BLS'') announced that the agency had discovered a
computational error in quality adjustments of air
conditioning as a part of the cost of housing resulting in
errors in the reported CPI between January 1999 and August
2000. The BLS reported that the CPI levels starting in
January 1999 have been either 0.0, 0.1, or 0.2 index points
lower than the levels that would have been published without
the error. Consistent with agency guidelines and past
practice, the BLS announced that it is revising the reported
CPI back to January 2000 to the fully correct levels. The BLS
will make no change to reported levels for January through
December 1999. However, the BLS will make the corrected
levels of the CPI for 1999 available upon request.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Bill
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement authorizes the Secretary of the
Treasury to use the corrected levels of the CPI for 1999 and
2000 for all purposes of the Code to which they might apply.
The conference agreement directs the Secretary to prescribe
new tables reflecting
[[Page 24487]]
the correct levels of the 1999 CPI for the 2000 tax year.
In addition, the conference agreement provides that the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')
shall assess Federal benefit programs to ascertain the extent
to which the CPI error has or will result in a shortfall in
program payments to individuals for 2000 and future years.
The conference agreement directs the Director to issue
guidelines to agency administrators to determine the extent,
if any, of such shortfalls in payments to individuals. The
agency administrators are to report their findings to the
Director and to Congress within 30 days. The conference
agreement provides that, within 60 days of the date of
enactment, the Director instruct the head of any Federal
agency which administers an affected program to make a
payment or payments to compensate for the shortfall and that
such payments are targeted to the amount of the shortfall
experienced by individual beneficiaries. Applicable Federal
benefit programs include the old-age and survivors insurance
program, the disability insurance program and the
supplemental security income program under the Social
Security Act and other programs as determined by the
Director. The conference agreement directs the Director to
report to the Congress on the activities performed pursuant
to this provision by April 1, 2001.
The conferees recognize that the error in the CPI was
computational in nature. The conferees support the BLS's
policy to incorporate methodological changes only on a
prospective basis. The conferees also understand that BLS
policy provides that published indices generally not be
revised except for those found to be in error for the year in
which the error was discovered or within the past twelve
months. The conferees recognize that the errors in the CPI
date to as long as 20 months prior to the announcement of the
error. The conferees recognize that the BLS's policy of not
publishing corrected index numbers, beyond those provided as
described above, has been applied in those rare cases where
an error has been discovered in the past. However, the
conferees understand that in the past 25 years the few errors
that have been discovered have involved sub-indices and have
not affected the level of the CPI itself. The last time the
U.S. City Average All Items CPI was revised was in December
1974, when the values for the months of April through October
1974 were recalculated and released with issuance of the
November CPI. Therefore, past precedent does not strictly
apply to the present situation.
The conferees believe that integrity of official government
data is vital to policymakers and private individuals and
businesses throughout the country. The conferees emphasize
that the CPI plays an important role in economic planning.
For this reason the conferees are concerned that, while the
BLS has published corrected CPI numbers for 2000, the BLS
does not intend to publish corrected CPI numbers for 1999 as
part of the official CPI series. To its credit, the BLS
announced the error publicly. The national press reported the
error. 52 In the absence of a correction to the
official CPI series, the Federal government will be left in
the position of maintaining, as an official data series,
index numbers that the Federal government has admitted are
incorrect. The conferees believe that the public's trust in
the integrity of official government data is a paramount goal
and the conferees strongly encourage the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics to review carefully the agency's
current policy with respect to publishing as part of an
official series corrections to data found to be in error for
reasons of computational error. The conferees believe such a
review should be made both with respect to the error
announced on September 28, 2000, and as a matter for the
future for those rare circumstances where such a similar
computational error might once again arise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ For example, John M. Berry, ``Inflation Higher Than
Reported,'' The Washington Post, September 27, 2000, p. E-1,
John M. Berry, ``Rent Error Leads to Revision Of the CPI,''
The Washington Post, September 29, 2000, p. E-3, Nicholas
Kulish, ``Major Price Index Is Revised Upward As Result of
Error,'' The Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2000, p. A2,
and Nicholas Kulish, ``Second-Period GDP Rose at 5.6% Annual
Rate,'' The Wall Street Journal, September 29, 2000, p. A2.
The conferees observe that these press reports highlight the
potential confusion for the public regarding these data. The
Washington Post reported that ``the CPI figures for 1999 were
not revised'' (September 29, 2000 story) while The Wall
Street Journal reported that ``[t]he BLS said a complete
revision of all the data sets would be released'' (September
28, 2000 story) and ``it [BLS] announced that it would revise
the index'' (September 29, 2000 story).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
I. Prevent Duplication or Acceleration of Loss Through Assumption of
Certain Liabilities (sec. 709 of the bill and sec. 358 of the Code)
Present Law
Generally, no gain or loss is recognized when one or more
persons transfer property to a corporation in exchange for
stock and immediately after the exchange such person or
persons control the corporation. However, a transferor
recognizes gain to the extent it receives money or other
property (``boot'') as part of the exchange (sec. 351).
The assumption of liabilities by the controlled corporation
generally is not treated as boot received by the transferor,
53 except that the transferor recognizes gain to
the extent that the liabilities assumed exceed the total of
the adjusted basis of the property transferred to the
controlled corporation pursuant to the exchange (sec.
357(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ The assumption of liabilities is treated as boot if it
can be shown that ``the principal purpose'' of the assumption
is tax avoidance on the exchange, or is a non-bona fide
business purpose (sec. 357(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assumption of liabilities by the controlled corporation
generally reduces the transferor's basis in the stock of the
controlled corporation that assumed the liabilities. The
transferor's basis in the stock of the controlled corporation
is the same as the basis of the property contributed to the
controlled corporation, increased by the amount of any gain
(or dividend) recognized by the transferor on the exchange,
and reduced by the amount of any money or property received,
and by the amount of any loss recognized by the transferor
(sec. 358). For this purpose, the assumption of a liability
is treated as money received by the transferor.
An exception to the general treatment of assumptions of
liabilities applies to assumptions of liabilities that would
give rise to a deduction, provided the incurrence of such
liabilities did not result in the creation or increase of
basis of any property. The assumption of such liabilities is
not treated as money received by the transferor in
determining whether the transferor has gain on the exchange.
Similarly, the transferor's basis in the stock of the
controlled corporation is not reduced by the assumption of
such liabilities. The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that
the assumption by an accrual basis corporation of certain
contingent liabilities for soil and groundwater remediation
would be covered by this exception. 54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Rev. Rul. 95-74, 1995-2 C.B. 36. The ruling addressed a
parent corporation's transfer to a subsidiary of
substantially all the assets of a manufacturing business, in
exchange for stock and the assumption of liabilities
associated with the business, including certain contingent
environmental remediation liabilities. These liabilities
arose due to contamination of land during the parent
corporation's operation of the manufacturing business. The
transferor had no plan or intention to dispose of (or to have
the subsidiary issue) any subsidiary stock. The IRS ruled
that the contingent liabilities would not reduce the
transferor's basis in the stock of the subsidiary because the
liabilities had not been taken into account by the transferor
prior to the transfer and had not given rise to deductions or
basis for the transferor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
No provision. However, the conference agreement to the
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488) included
an earlier version of the legislation, effective for
assumptions of liabilities after July 14, 1999.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, the conference agreement to the
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (H.R. 2488) included
an earlier version of the legislation, effective for
assumptions of liabilities after July 14, 1999. In addition,
on October 20, 1999, the Senate Finance Committee reported a
bill (S. 1792) that contains a provision that limits the
acceleration or duplication of losses through assumptions of
liabilities. On April 4, 2000, Senators Roth and Moynihan
introduced a bill that contains the same provision (S. 2354).
Effective date.--The provision in S. 2354 is effective for
assumptions of liabilities on or after October 19, 1999.
Except as provided by the Secretary, the rules addressing
transactions involving partnerships are effective with the
same effective date. Any rules addressing transactions
involving S corporations may likewise be effective for
assumptions of liabilities on or after October 19, 1999 or
such later date as may be prescribed in such rules.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement adopts the provision in S. 2354.
Under the conference agreement, if the basis of stock
(determined without regard to this provision) received by a
transferor as part of a tax-free exchange with a controlled
corporation exceeds the fair market value of the stock, then
the basis of the stock received is reduced (but not below the
fair market value) by the amount (determined as of the date
of the exchange) of any liability that (1) is assumed in
exchange for such stock, and (2) did not otherwise reduce the
transferor's basis of the stock by reason of the assumption.
Except as provided by the Secretary of the Treasury, this
provision does not apply where the trade or business with
which the liability is associated is transferred to the
corporation as part of the exchange, or where substantially
all the assets with which the liability is associated are
transferred to the corporation as part of the exchange.
The exceptions for transfers of a trade or business, or of
substantially all the assets, with which a liability is
associated, are intended to obviate the need for valuation or
basis reduction in such cases. The exceptions are not
intended to apply to situations involving the selective
transfer of assets that may bear some relationship to the
liability,
[[Page 24488]]
but that do not represent the full scope of the trade or
business, (or substantially all the assets) with which the
liability is associated.
For purposes of the provision, the term ``liability''
includes any fixed or contingent obligation to make payment,
without regard to whether such obligation or potential
obligation is otherwise taken into account under the Code.
The determination whether a liability (as more broadly
defined for purposes of this provision) has been assumed is
made in accordance with the provisions of section 357(d)(1)
of the Code. Under the standard of 357(d)(1), a recourse
liability is treated as assumed if, based on all the facts
and circumstances, the transferee has agreed to and is
expected to satisfy such liability (or portion thereof),
whether or not the transferor has been relieved of the
liability. For example, if a transferee corporation does not
formally assume a recourse obligation or potential obligation
of the transferor, but instead agrees and is expected to
indemnify the transferor with respect to all or a portion of
a such an obligation, then the amount that is agreed to be
indemnified is treated as assumed for purposes of the
provision, whether or not the transferor has been relieved of
such liability. Similarly, a nonrecourse liability is treated
as assumed by the transferee of any asset subject to such
liability.55
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Section 357(d)(2) contains a limitation in the case of
certain nonrecourse liabilities. Also, under section 357,
regulations, if issued, may provide for different results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The application of the provision is illustrated in the
following example: Assume a taxpayer transfers assets with an
adjusted basis and fair market value of $100 to its wholly-
owned corporation and the corporation assumes $40 of
liabilities (the payment of which would give rise to a
deduction). Thus, the value of the stock received by the
transferor is $60. Under present law, the basis of the stock
would be $100. The provision requires that the basis of the
stock be reduced to $60 (i.e., a reduction of $40). Except as
provided by the Secretary, no basis reduction is required if
the transferred assets consisted of the trade or business, or
substantially all the assets, with which the liability is
associated.
The provision does not change the tax treatment with
respect to the transferee corporation.
The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to prescribe
rules providing appropriate adjustments to prevent the
acceleration or duplication of losses through the assumption
of liabilities (as defined in the provision) in transactions
involving partnerships. The Secretary may also provide
appropriate adjustments in the case of transactions involving
S corporations. In the case of S corporations, such rules may
be applied instead of the otherwise applicable basis
reduction rules.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for assumptions
of liabilities on or after October 19, 1999. Except as
provided by the Secretary, the rules addressing transactions
involving partnerships are effective with the same effective
date Any rules addressing transactions involving S
corporations may likewise be effective for assumptions of
liabilities on or after October 19, 1999, or such later date
as may be prescribed in such rules.
Subtitle B. Miscellaneous Provisions
A. Repeal Certain Excise Taxes on Rail Diesel Fuel and Inland Waterway
Barge Fuels (sec. 710 of the bill and secs. 4041 and 4042 of the Code)
Present Law
Under present law, diesel fuel used in trains is subject to
a 4.3-cents-per gallon General Fund excise tax. Similarly,
fuels used in barges operating on the designated inland
waterways system is subject to a 4.3-cents-per-gallon General
Fund excise tax. In both cases, the 4.3-cents- per-gallon
excise tax rates are permanent.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The 4.3-cents-per-gallon General Fund excise tax rates on
diesel fuel used in trains and fuels used in barges operating
on the designated inland waterways system is repealed.
Effective date.--The provision takes effect on January 1,
2001.
B. Repeal of Reduction of Deductions for Mutual Life Insurance
Companies and of Policyholder Surplus Accounts of Life Insurance
Companies (secs. 711-712 of the bill and secs. 809 and 815 of the Code)
Prior and Present Law
Reduction in deductions for policyholder dividends and
reserves of mutual life insurance companies (sec. 809)
In general, a corporation may not deduct amounts
distributed to shareholders with respect to the corporation's
stock. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 added a provision to
the rules governing insurance companies that was intended to
remedy the failure of prior law to distinguish between
amounts returned by mutual life insurance companies to
policyholders as customers, and amounts distributed to them
as owners of the mutual company.
Under the provision, section 809, a mutual life insurance
company is required to reduce its deduction for policyholder
dividends by the company's differential earnings amount. If
the company's differential earnings amount exceeds the amount
of its deductible policyholder dividends, the company is
required to reduce its deduction for changes in its reserves
by the excess of its differential earnings amount over the
amount of its deductible policyholder dividends. The
differential earnings amount is the product of the
differential earnings rate and the average equity base of a
mutual life insurance company.
The differential earnings rate is based on the difference
between the average earnings rate of the 50 largest stock
life insurance companies and the earnings rate of all mutual
life insurance companies. The mutual earnings rate applied
under the provision is the rate for the second calendar year
preceding the calendar year in which the taxable year begins.
Under present law, the differential earnings rate cannot be a
negative number.
A company's equity base equals the sum of: (1) its surplus
and capital increased by 50 percent of the amount of any
provision for policyholder dividends payable in the following
taxable year; (2) the amount of its nonadmitted financial
assets; (3) the excess of its statutory reserves over its tax
reserves; and (4) the amount of any mandatory security
valuation reserves, deficiency reserves, and voluntary
reserves. A company's average equity base is the average of
the company's equity base at the end of the taxable year and
its equity base at the end of the preceding taxable year.
A recomputation or ``true-up'' in a subsequent year is
required if the differential earnings amount for the taxable
year either exceeds, or is less than, the recomputed
differential earnings amount. The recomputed differential
earnings amount is calculated taking into account the average
mutual earnings rate for the calendar year (rather than the
second preceding calendar year, as above). The amount of the
true-up for any taxable year is added to, or deducted from,
the mutual company's income for the succeeding taxable year.
Distributions to shareholders from policyholders surplus
account (sec. 815)
Under the law in effect from 1959 through 1983, a life
insurance company was subject to a three-phase taxable income
computation under Federal tax law. Under the three-phase
system, a company was taxed on the lesser of its gain from
operations or its taxable investment income (Phase I) and, if
its gain from operations exceeded its taxable investment
income, 50 percent of such excess (Phase II). Federal income
tax on the other 50 percent of the gain from operations
56 was deferred, and was accounted for as part of
a policyholder's surplus account and, subject to certain
limitations, taxed only when distributed to stockholders or
upon corporate dissolution (Phase III). To determine whether
amounts had been distributed, a company maintained a
shareholders surplus account, which generally included the
company's previously taxed income that would be available for
distribution to shareholders.57 Distributions to
shareholders were treated as being
[[Page 24489]]
first out of the shareholders surplus account, then out of
the policyholders surplus account, and finally out of other
accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The legislative history to the Life Insurance Company
Tax Act of 1959 states that ``[t]his 50 percent reduction in
underwriting gains is made because of the claim that it is
difficult to establish with certainty the actual annual
income of life insurance companies. It has been pointed out
that because of the long-term nature of their contracts,
amounts, which may appear as income in the current year and
as proper additions to surplus, may, as a result of
subsequent events, be needed to fulfill life insurance
contracts. Because of this difficulty in arriving at true
underwriting gains on an annual basis, the bill provides for
the taxation of only 50 percent of this gain on a current
basis.'' Report of the Committee on Ways and Means to
accompany H.R. 4245, H. Rep. No. 34, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. at
13 (1959). Similarly, the Senate report provides, ``Although
it is believed desirable to subject this underwriting income
to tax, it is stated that because of the long-term nature of
insurance contracts it is difficult, if not impossible, to
determine the true income of life insurance companies
otherwise than by ascertaining over a long period of time the
income derived from a contract or block of contracts. Because
of this, the bill as amended by your committee, like the bill
as passed by the House, does not attempt to tax on an annual
basis all of what might appear to be income. In both the
House and your committee's bill, half of the underwriting
income is taxed as it accrues each year. The other half of
the underwriting income is taxed when it is paid out in a
distribution to shareholders after the taxed income has been
distributed, or when it is voluntarily segregated and held
for the benefit of the shareholders. This other half of the
underwriting income also is taxed if the cumulative amount
exceeds certain prescribed limits or if for a specified
period of time the company ceases to be a life insurance
company.'' Report of the Committee on Finance to accompany
H.R. 4245, S. Rep. No. 291, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. at 7
(1959).
\57\ Other events are treated as a subtraction from the
policyholders surplus account. If for any taxable year the
taxpayer is not an insurance company, or for any 2 taxable
years the company is not a life insurance company, then the
balance in the policyholder surplus account at the close of
the preceding taxable year is taken into income (former sec.
815(d)(2) as in effect prior to the 1984 Act, which is
referred to in present-law sec. 815(f)). Further, the
policyholder surplus account is reduced by the excess of the
account over the greatest of 3 amounts related to reserves:
(1) 15 percent of life insurance reserves at the end of the
taxable year; (2) 25 percent of the amount by which the life
insurance reserves at the end of the taxable year exceed the
life insurance reserve at the end of 1958; or (3) 50 percent
of the net amount of the premiums and other consideration
taken into account for the taxable year (former sec.
815(d)(4)(A)-(C), as in effect prior to the 1984 Act, which
is referred to in present-law sec. 815(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 included provisions that,
for 1984 and later years, eliminated further deferral of tax
on amounts (described above) that previously would have been
deferred under the three-phase system. Although for taxable
years after 1983, life insurance companies may not enlarge
their policyholders surplus account, the companies are not
taxed on previously deferred amounts unless the amounts are
treated as distributed to shareholders or subtracted from the
policyholders surplus account (sec. 815).
Under present law, any direct or indirect distribution to
shareholders from an existing policyholders surplus account
of a stock life insurance company is subject to tax at the
corporate rate in the taxable year of the
distribution.58 Present law (like prior law)
provides that any distribution to shareholders is treated as
made (1) first out of the shareholders surplus account, to
the extent thereof, (2) then out of the policyholders surplus
account, to the extent thereof, and (3) finally, out of other
accounts.59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Section 815.
\59\ Section 815(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
Reduction in deductions for policyholder dividends and
reserves of mutual life insurance companies (sec. 809)
The conference agreement repeals the rules requiring
reduction in certain deductions of mutual life insurance
companies (sec. 809) for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2000.
Effective date.--The repeal is effective for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
Distributions to shareholders from policyholders surplus
account (sec. 815)
The conference agreement repeals the rules relating to
distributions to shareholders from the policyholders surplus
account of a life insurance company (sec. 815) for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
Effective date.--The repeal is effective for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
C. Tax-Credit Bonds for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(``Amtrak'') and the Alaska Railroad (sec. 713 of the bill and new sec.
54 of the Code)
Present Law
Present law does not authorize the issuance by any private,
for-profit corporation of bonds the interest on which is tax-
exempt or eligible for an income tax credit. Tax-exempt bonds
may be issued by States or local governments to finance their
governmental activities or to finance certain capital
expenditures of private businesses or loans to individuals.
Additionally, States or local governments may issue tax-
credit bonds to finance the operation of ``qualified zone
academies.''
Tax-exempt bonds
Interest on bonds issued by States or local governments to
finance direct activities of those governmental units is
excluded from tax (sec. 103). In addition, interest on
certain bonds (``private activity bonds'') issued by States
or local governments acting as conduits to provide financing
for private businesses or individuals is excluded from income
if the purpose of the borrowing is specifically approved in
the Code (sec. 141). Examples of approved private activities
for which States or local governments may provide tax-exempt
financing include transportation facilities (airports, ports,
mass commuting facilities, and certain high speed intercity
rail facilities); public works facilities such as water,
sewer, and solid waste disposal; and certain social welfare
programs such as low-income rental housing, student loans,
and mortgage loans to certain first-time homebuyers. High
speed intercity rail facilities eligible for tax-exempt
financing include land, rail, and stations (but not rolling
stock) for fixed guideway rail transportation of passengers
and their baggage using vehicles that are reasonably expected
to operate at speeds in excess of 150 miles per hour between
scheduled stops.
Issuance of most private activity bonds is subject to
annual State volume limits of $50 per resident ($150 million
if greater). These volume limits are scheduled to increase to
$75 per resident ($225 million if greater) over the period
2003 through 2007.
Investment earnings on all tax-exempt bonds, including
earnings on invested sinking funds associated with such bonds
is restricted by the Code to prevent the issuance of bonds
earlier or in a greater amount than necessary for the purpose
of the borrowing. In general, all profits on investment of
such proceeds must be rebated to the Federal Government.
Interest on bonds associated with invested sinking funds is
taxable.
Tax-credit bonds for qualified zone academies
As an alternative to traditional tax-exempt bonds, certain
States or local governments are given authority to issue
``qualified zone academy bonds.'' A total of $400 million of
qualified zone academy bonds is authorized to be issued in
each year of 1998 through 2001. The $400 million is allocated
to States according to their respective populations of
individuals below the poverty line.
Qualified zone academy bonds are taxable bonds with respect
to which the investor receives an income tax credit equal to
an assumed interest rate set by the Treasury Department to
allow issuance of the bonds without discount and without
interest cost to the issuer. The bonds may be used for
renovating, providing equipment to, developing course
materials for, or training teachers in eligible schools.
Eligible schools are elementary and secondary schools with
respect to which private entities make contributions equaling
at least 10 percent of the bond proceeds.
Only financial institutions are eligible to claim the
credits on qualified zone academy bonds. The amount of the
credit is taken into income. The credit may be claimed
against both regular income tax and AMT liability.
There are no arbitrage restrictions applicable to
investment earnings on qualified zone academy bond proceeds.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision, but S. 3152, authorizes the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (``Amtrak'') and the Alaska Railroad to
issue an aggregate amount of $10 billion of tax-credit bonds
to finance its capital projects. Annual issuance of the bonds
may not exceed $1 billion per year (plus any authorized
amount that was not issued in previous years) during the ten
Fiscal Year period, 2001-2010. Unused bond authority could be
carried forward to succeeding years until used, subject to a
limitation that no tax-credit bonds could be issued after
fiscal year 2015.
Projects eligible for tax-credit bond financing are defined
as the acquisition, construction of equipment, rolling stock,
and other capital improvements for (1) the northeast rail
corridor between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts;
60 (2) high-speed rail corridors designated under
section 104(d)(2) of Title 23 of the United States Code; and
(3) other intercity passenger rail corridors, including
station rehabilitation or construction, track or signal
improvements, or grade crossing elimination. Item 3 is
limited to a maximum of 10 percent of the proceeds of any
bond issue. At least 70 percent of the authorized tax-credit
bonds must be issued for projects described in (2) and (3).
No more than $3 billion of the bonds may be designated for
any one high-speed rail corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ $92 million of Amtrak's tax-credit bond authority for
Northeast Corridor projects is set aside for the acquisition
and installation of platform facilities, performance of
railroad force account work necessary to complete
improvements below grade, and any other necessary
improvements related to construction at the new railroad
station at the James A. Farley Post Office Building in New
York City. Projects finance with this $92 million of tax-
credit bonds are not subject to the Senate contribution
requirement, described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with qualified zone academy bonds, the interest rate on
Amtrak/Alaska Railroad tax-credit bonds will be set to allow
issuance of the bonds at par, i.e., without any interest cost
to Amtrak or the Alaska Railroad. In general, proceeds of
Amtrak/Alaska Railroad tax-credit bonds would have to be
spent within 36 months after the bonds are issued. As of the
date the bonds were issued, Amtrak or the Alaska Railroad
must certify that it reasonably expects--
(1) to incur a binding obligation with a third party to
spend at least 10 percent of the bond proceeds within six
months (or in the case of self-constructed property, to have
commenced construction or preliminary engineering studies
within six months);
(2) to spend the bond proceeds with due diligence; and
(3) to spend at least 95 percent of the proceeds for
qualifying capital costs within three years.
Amtrak/Alaska Railroad tax-credit bonds may only be issued
for projects that are approved by the Department of
Transportation and, in the case of Amtrak, with respect to
which there are binding commitments from one or more States
to make matching contributions of at least 20 percent of the
project cost. Projects having State matching contributions in
excess of 20 percent are given a preference. The State
matching contributions, along with earnings on investment of
the tax-credit bond proceeds must be invested in a trust
account (i.e., a sinking fund) and used along with earnings
on the trust account for repayment of the principal amount of
the bonds.
[[Page 24490]]
Amtrak/Alaska Railroad tax-credit bonds can be owned (and
income tax credits claimed) by any taxpayer. The amount of
the credit will be included in the bondholder's income.
Additionally, provisions are included in the proposal to
allow the credits to be stripped and sold to different
investors than the investors in the bond principal.
The required State matching contribution may not be derived
from Federal monies. Any Federal Highway Trust Fund monies
transferred to the States are treated as Federal monies for
this purpose. During the period when tax-credit bonds are
authorized, Amtrak and the Alaska Railroad are not allowed to
receive any Highway Trust Fund monies other than those
authorized on the date of the provision's enactment.
Amtrak is required annually to submit a five-year capital
plan to Congress, and to satisfy independent oversight
requirements with respect to the management of tax-credit-
bond-financed projects. Finally, the Treasury Department is
required to certify annually that funds deposited in the
escrow accounts for repayment of tax-credit bonds issued by
Amtrak (with actual and projected earnings thereon) are
sufficient to ensure full repayment of the bond principal.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for tax credit
bonds issued by Amtrak or the Alaska Railroad after September
30, 2000.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment, with
several modifications and clarifications.
First, the expenditure requirements applicable to these tax
credit bonds are modified to add an actual expenditure
requirement to the Senate amendment's reasonable expectations
test. Under the actual expenditure requirement, unless at
least 95 percent of the bond proceeds is spent within 3 years
after the bonds are issued, unspent proceeds must be used to
redeem bonds within 90 days after the end of the period. An
exception allows the expenditure period to be extended to
four years if (1) at least 75 percent of the proceeds are
spent within the initial three year period, (2) the issuer
has proceeded with due diligence to spend the proceeds within
the initial three-year period, and (3) the issuer pays to the
Federal Government all earnings on unspent proceeds that
accrue after the end of the initial three-year period. If the
issuer qualifies for the exception, but fails to satisfy its
spending requirements, unspent proceeds must be used to
redeem bonds within 90 days after the end of the four-year
period.
Second, the definition of qualified expenditures is
modified to preclude the use of bond proceeds to refinance
outstanding debt except for ``bridge'' and similar financing
incurred for a qualified project pending issuance of tax-
credit bonds. Qualified bridge financing is defined as
financing that (1) is issued after the date of enactment of
the provision, (2) has a term of not more than three years,
(3) is used to finance or acquire capital improvements that
qualify for tax-credit bond financing, and (4) is issued in
anticipation of being refinanced with proceeds of tax-credit
bonds.
Third, provisions are added requiring that tax-credit-bond-
financed property be continuously used for a qualified
purpose throughout the term of the bonds.
Fourth, clarification is provided that the use of tax-
credit bond proceeds to redeem bonds (except as required
above and except with regard to not more than five percent of
the bond proceeds) is not a qualified expenditure. A further
modification allows Amtrak to treat as a qualified project
expenditure, expenditure of not more than 0.5 percent of bond
proceeds for costs of complying with the oversight
requirements imposed on that railroad by the conference
agreement.
Fifth, clarification is provided that the tax credit rate
is determined on the date the bonds are sold (rather than the
actual issuance date, if different).
Sixth, the Senate amendment is modified to require actual
deposit in to the Trust Account securing repayment of the
bonds of the required State contributions before any tax-
credit bonds are issued.
Seventh, for bonds issued by Amtrak, the Senate amendment
is modified to require (in addition to approval by the
Secretary of Transportation) a finding by the Inspector
General of the Department of Transportation that there is ``a
reasonable likelihood'' that the proposed projects will
result ``in a positive incremental financial contribution''
to Amtrak and to specify criteria to be used in making this
determination.
Return on investment.--The measurements used to evaluate
the amount of return on investment shall include (1) the
positive incremental financial contribution to Amtrak,
including all system-wide impacts and (2) the value of the
net cash flow to Amtrak produced over the life of the
program, discounted to current dollars. Such net cash flow
should take into consideration operating efficiencies
produced as a result of the total capital investment as well
as incremental passenger related, mail and express, State and
other revenue as a result of the total capital investment.
Leveraging of funds.--The measurements used to evaluate the
leveraging of funds shall include (1) the amount of public
and private match provided for the program, (2) the
percentage of public and private match provided for the
program relative to Amtrak's contribution and (3) the
stability or reliability of state and local capital and
operating support.
Cost effectiveness.--The measurement used to evaluate cost
effectiveness is the incremental cost to Amtrak per
incremental passenger or the incremental cost to Amtrak per
incremental revenue generated as a result of the capital
investment.
Safety improvement.--The measurements used to evaluate
safety improvement shall include (1) the prevention or
reduction of customer or third party injuries and (2) the
prevention or reduction of employee injuries.
Mobility improvement.--The measurements used to evaluate
the level of mobility improvement shall include (1) travel
time savings and (2) low income households served.
Feasibility.--The measurements used to evaluate feasibility
shall include (1) timing of program implementation, (2)
technical feasibility and (3) likelihood of public and
private participation.
Eighth, clarification is provided that the tax-credit bonds
are the obligation of the issuing railroad notwithstanding
the existence of the Trust Account securing their repayment.
As in the case of other tax-preferred debt, no implied
Federal Guarantee arises by virtue of the availability of tax
credits on these bonds.
Ninth, the Senate amendment is modified to provide that
funds in the Trust Account that are not required to redeem
bonds may be used for additional qualified projects.
D. Farm, Fish, and Ranch Risk Management Accounts (``FFARRM Accounts'')
(sec. 714 of the bill and new sec. 468C of the Code)
present law
There is no provision in present law allowing the elective
deferral of farm or fishing income.
house bill
No provision.
senate amendment
No provision. However, S. 3152 allows taxpayers engaged in
an eligible business to establish FFARRM accounts. An
eligible business is any trade or business of farming in
which the taxpayer actively participates, including the
operation of a nursery or sod farm or the raising or
harvesting of crop-bearing or ornamental trees. An eligible
business also is the trade or business of commercial fishing
as that term is defined under section (3) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1802) and includes the trade or business of catching, taking
or harvesting fish that are intended to enter commerce
through sale, barter or trade.
Contributions to a FFARRM account are deductible and are
limited to 20 percent of the taxable income that is
attributable to the eligible business. The deduction is taken
into account in determining adjusted gross income and reduces
the income attributable to the eligible business for all
income tax purposes other than the determination of the 20
percent of eligible income limitation on contributions to a
FFARRM account. Contributions to a FFARRM account do not
reduce earnings from self-employment. Accordingly,
distributions are not included in self-employment income.
A FFARRM account is taxed as a grantor trust and any
earnings are required to be distributed currently. Thus, any
income earned in the FFARRM account is taxed currently to the
farmer or fisherman who established the account. Amounts can
remain on deposit in a FFARRM account for up to five years.
Any amount that has not been distributed by the close of the
fourth year following the year of deposit is deemed to be
distributed and includible in the gross income of the account
owner.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows the provision of S. 3152.
E. Extension and Modification of Enhanced Deduction for Corporate
Donations of Computer Technology (sec. 715 of the bill and sec. 170
(e)(6) of the Code)
present law
The maximum charitable contribution deduction that may be
claimed by a corporation for any one taxable year is limited
to 10 percent of the corporation's taxable income for that
year (disregarding charitable contributions and with certain
other modifications) (sec. 170(b)(2)). Corporations also are
subject to certain limitations based on the type of property
contributed. In the case of a charitable contribution of
short-term gain property, inventory, or other ordinary income
property, the amount of the deduction generally is limited to
the taxpayer's basis (generally, cost) in the property.
However, special rules in the Code provide an augmented
deduction for certain corporate contributions. Under these
special rules, the amount of the augmented deduction is equal
to the lesser of (1) the basis of the donated property plus
one-half of the amount of ordinary income that would have
been realized if the property had been sold, or (2) twice the
basis of the donated property.
Section 170(e)(6) allows corporate taxpayers an augmented
deduction for qualified contributions of computer technology
and
[[Page 24491]]
equipment (i.e., computer software, computer or peripheral
equipment, and fiber optic cable related to computer use) to
be used within the United States for educational purposes in
grades K-12. Eligible donees are: (1) any educational
organization that normally maintains a regular faculty and
curriculum and has a regularly enrolled body of pupils in
attendance at the place where its educational activities are
regularly carried on; and (2) tax-exempt charitable
organizations that are organized primarily for purposes of
supporting elementary and secondary education. A private
foundation also is an eligible donee, provided that, within
30 days after receipt of the contribution, the private
foundation contributes the property to an eligible donee
described above.
Qualified contributions are limited to gifts made no later
than two years after the date the taxpayer acquired or
substantially completed the construction of the donated
property. In addition, the original use of the donated
property must commence with the donor or the donee.
Accordingly, qualified contributions generally are limited to
property that is no more than two years old. Such donated
property could be computer technology or equipment that is
inventory or depreciable trade or business property in the
hands of the donor.
Donee organizations are not permitted to transfer the
donated property for money or services (e.g., a donee
organization cannot sell the computers). However, a donee
organization may transfer the donated property in furtherance
of its exempt purposes and be reimbursed for shipping,
installation, and transfer costs. For example, if a
corporation contributes computers to a charity that
subsequently distributes the computers to several elementary
schools in a given area, the charity could be reimbursed by
the elementary schools for shipping, transfer, and
installation costs.
The special treatment applies only to donations made by C
corporations. S corporations, personal holding companies, and
service organizations are not eligible donors.
The provision is scheduled to expire for contributions made
in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
house bill
No provision.
senate amendment
No provision. However, S. 3152 includes a provision that
extends the current enhanced deduction for donations of
computer technology and equipment through December 31, 2003.
In addition, S. 3152 expands the enhanced deduction to
include donations to public libraries.
Effective date.--The provision is effective upon the date
of enactment.
conference agreement
The conference agreement follows S. 3152 with a
modification that qualified contributions include gifts made
no later than three years after the date the taxpayer
acquired or substantially completed the construction of the
donated property.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for
contributions made after December 31, 2000.
F. Settlement of Certain Discrimination Claims Brought by Farmers
Against the Department of Agriculture (sec. 716 of the bill)
Present Law
Income tax
Gross income means ``income from whatever source derived''
except for certain items specifically excluded by
statute.61 Sources of income include compensation
for services, interest, dividends, capital gains, rents,
royalties, gross profits from a trade or business, income
from the discharge of indebtedness, and income from S
corporations, partnerships, trusts, and estates. In
determining taxable income, a taxpayer's gross income is
reduced by exemptions and deductions. Absent any applicable
exemption or exclusion, an amount received by an individual
in the settlement of a lawsuit generally is includible in
gross income.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Section 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill
No provision. However, H.R. 2233 excludes from gross income
any cash received or cancellation of indebtedness income as a
result of the settlement of certain claims brought by certain
farmers against the Department of Agriculture for
discrimination in farm credit and benefit programs. The bill
further provides that such amounts are not included in the
gross estate of any qualified person for estate tax purposes.
Finally, the bill provides that these amounts are not to be
(1) considered income or resources in determining eligibility
for, (2) used to deny or reduce funds under, or (3) used as a
basis for determining the amount of assistance under, any
program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. The
bill is limited to certified members of the plaintiff class
in the settlement of two consolidated class action suits. The
two suits are Pigford, et al. v. Glickman No. 97-1978
(D.D.C.)(PLF) and Brewington, et al. v. Glickman No. 98-1693
(D.D.C.)(PLF).
Effective date.--The provision is effective after the date
of enactment.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the provision of H.R.
2233, with modifications. The conference agreement provision
provides an exclusion of certain amounts from gross income
for purposes of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. This
exclusion applies to any (1) cash payment received before,
on, or after the date of enactment by or made on behalf of, a
person under the settlement of these two claims or (2)
cancellation of indebtedness income pursuant to the
settlement of these two claims. The conference agreement does
not include the provision of H.R. 2233 that provides an
exclusion of amounts from the gross estate of any qualified
person, for estate tax purposes. Further, the conference
agreement does not include the provision of H.R. 2233
providing that amounts are not to be (1) considered income or
resources in determining eligibility for, (2) used to deny or
reduce funds under, or (3) used as a basis for determining
the amount of assistance under, any program funded in whole
or in part with Federal funds.
G. Extension of the Adoption Tax Credit (sec. 717 of the bill and sec.
23 of the Code)
Present Law
Taxpayers are entitled to a maximum nonrefundable credit
against income tax liability of $5,000 per child for
qualified adoption expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer
(sec. 23). In the case of a special needs adoption, the
maximum credit amount is $6,000. A special needs child is a
child who is a citizen or resident of the United States and
who the State has determined: (1) cannot or should not be
returned to the home of the birth parents, and (2) has a
specific factor or condition because of which the child
cannot be placed with adoptive parents without adoption
assistance. The adoption of a child who is not a citizen or a
resident of the United States is a foreign adoption.
Qualified adoption expenses are reasonable and necessary
adoption fees, court costs, attorneys' fees, and other
expenses that are directly related to the legal adoption of
an eligible child. All reasonable and necessary expenses
required by a State as a condition of adoption are qualified
adoption expenses. Otherwise qualified adoption expenses paid
or incurred in one taxable year are not taken into account
for purposes of the credit until the next taxable year unless
the expenses are paid or incurred in the year the adoption
becomes final.
An eligible child is an individual (1) who has not attained
age 18 or (2) who is physically or mentally incapable of
caring for himself or herself. After December 31, 2001, the
credit will be available only for special needs adoptions.
No credit is allowed for expenses incurred (1) in violation
of State or Federal law, (2) in carrying out any surrogate
parenting arrangement, (3) in connection with the adoption of
a child of the taxpayer's spouse, (4) that are reimbursed
under an employer adoption assistance program or otherwise,
or (5) for a foreign adoption that is not finalized.
The credit is phased out ratably for taxpayers with
modified AGI above $75,000, and is fully phased out at
$115,000 of modified AGI. For these purposes modified AGI is
computed by increasing the taxpayer's AGI by the amount
otherwise excluded from gross income under Code sections 911,
931, or 933.
House Bill
No provision.
senate amendment
No provision. However, S. 3152 extends the adoption credit
for the adoption of non- special needs children for two years
through December 31, 2003.
Effective date.--The provision is effective on the date of
enactment.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement extends the credit for nonspecial
needs adoptions to include qualified adoption expenses paid
or incurred prior to December 31, 2005, and increases the
maximum credit by $1,000 per year beginning for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000 and until the maximum
credit reaches $10,000 per year for taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2004. In the case of special needs
adoptions, the maximum credit is increased by $2,000 per year
for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000 until the
maximum credit reaches $12,000 per year for taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2002.
Additionally, for taxable years beginning after December
31, 2000, the income limitation for the credit is increased
to $150,000 of modified AGI, and is phased out ratably for
taxpayers with modified AGI between $150,000 and $190,000.
Effective date.--The provision is effective for taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2000.
H. Study of Tax Treatment with respect to Certain Offshore Insurance
Companies (sec. 718 of the bill)
Present Law
Under present law, under the rules of subchapter L of the
Code, a life insurance company is subject to tax on its life
insurance company taxable income. Similarly, a property and
casualty insurance company is subject to tax on its taxable
income, which is
[[Page 24492]]
calculated by taking into account the company's underwriting
income and investment income, as well as gains and other
income items. An insurance company may enter into a
reinsurance contract or agreement with another insurer,
whereby risks, or portions of risks, are transferred from one
insurer to another or are shared or allocated among insurers.
Present law provides rules governing allocation in the case
of reinsurance agreements that involve tax avoidance or
evasion. Under this rule, in the case of two or more related
persons that are parties to a reinsurance agreement (or an
agent of a party to a reinsurance agreement), the Treasury
Secretary may allocate between or among such persons income
(whether investment income, premium or otherwise),
deductions, assets, reserves, credits, and other items
related to the agreement. The Treasury Secretary may also
recharacterize any such items or make any other adjustment.
The Secretary may make the allocation, recharacterization or
adjustment if he determines that it is necessary to reflect
the proper source and character of the taxable income (or
other item) of each related person or agent.62
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ H.R. 4192 (106th Cong., 2d. Sess.,) introduced April 5,
2000, would modify these rules relating to reinsurance
transactions. That bill would provide that if a domestic
person directly or indirectly reinsurances a U.S. risk with a
related foreign reinsurer, then the investment income of the
domestic person would be increased by the product of (1) the
reserves or liabilities related to the U.S. risk ceded to the
foreign reinsurer, and (2) the average applicable Federal
mid-term rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other rules also provide for the allocation of income and
deductions among taxpayers. In any case of two or more
organizations owned or controlled directly or indirectly by
the same interests, the Treasury Secretary may distribute,
apportion, or allocate gross income, deductions, credits, or
allowances between or among the organizations, if he
determines that it is necessary in order to prevent evasion
of taxes or clearly to reflect the income of the
organizations.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement provides that the Secretary of the
Treasury is to conduct a study on the extent to which U. S.
tax on investment income of U.S. insurance companies is being
avoided through the use of affiliated corporations in Bermuda
or other offshore locations. In conducting the study, the
Treasury Secretary is to address issues concerning the
application of current U.S. tax law in preventing such
avoidance, changes to U.S. tax law that may be needed to
prevent such avoidance, and is to make appropriate
recommendations. The Treasury Secretary is to submit the
study and recommendations to the House Committee on Ways and
Means and the Senate Committee on Finance no later than
December 31, 2001.
I. Treatment of Indian Tribes as Non-Profit Organizations and State or
Local Governments for Purposes of the Federal Unemployment Tax
(``FUTA'') (sec. 719 of the bill and sec. 3306 of the Code)
Present Law
Present law imposes a net tax on employers equal to 0.8
percent of the first $7,000 paid annually to each employee.
The current gross FUTA tax is 6.2 percent, but employers in
States meeting certain requirements and having no delinquent
loans are eligible for a 5.4 percent credit making the net
Federal tax rate 0.8 percent. Both non-profit organizations
and State and local governments are not required to pay FUTA
taxes. Instead they may elect to reimburse the unemployment
compensation system for unemployment compensation benefits
actually paid to their former employees. Generally, Indian
tribes are not eligible for the reimbursement treatment
allowable to non-profit organizations and State and local
governments.
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision. However, S. 3152 provides that an Indian
tribe (including any subdivision, subsidiary, or business
enterprise chartered and wholly owned by an Indian tribe) is
treated like a non-profit organization or State or local
government for FUTA purposes (i.e., given an election to
choose the reimbursement treatment).
Effective date.--The provision generally is effective with
respect to service performed beginning on or after the date
of enactment. Under a transition rule, service performed in
the employ of an Indian tribe is not treated as employment
for FUTA purposes if: (1) it is service which is performed
before the date of enactment and with respect to which FUTA
tax has not been paid; and (2) such Indian tribe reimburses a
State unemployment fund for unemployment benefits paid for
service attributable to such tribe for such period.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement follows the provision of S. 3152.
Subtitle C. Tax Technical Corrections
House Bill
No provision.
Senate Amendment
No provision.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement includes tax technical
corrections.63 Except as otherwise provided, the
technical corrections contained in the bill generally are
effective as if included in the originally enacted related
legislation. The provisions under the IRS Restructuring Act
of 1998 relating to innocent spouse and to procedural and
administrative issues (other than the provision relating to
clarification of Tax Court authority to issue appealable
decisions) are effective upon the date of enactment of the
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ In addition to other tax technical corrections, the bill
contains the technical corrections contained in H.R. 2488,
the Financial Freedom Act of 1999 (106th Cong., 1st Sess.,
reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means, H. Rept.
106-238, July 16, 1999, 393-397), as passed by the House, and
S. 1429, the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 (reported by the
Senate Committee on Finance, S. Rept. 106-120, July 23, 1999,
221-225), as passed by the Senate. (The technical corrections
were not included in the conference agreement to H.R. 2488,
the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999 (106th Cong., 1st
Sess., H. Rept. 106-289, Aug. 4, 1999, 542-543). The Taxpayer
Refund and Relief Act of 1999 was vetoed by President
Clinton.) However, the bill does not include the following
provisions enacted in other legislation: sections 1601(b)(2)
and (c) of H.R. 2488 (and section 504(c) of S. 1429),
relating to the Vaccine Trust Fund, which were enacted in the
``Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of
1999'' (P.L. 106-170, sec. 523(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments Relating to the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999 (sec. 721 of the bill)
Research credit.--The provision clarifies the anti-double
dip rule coordinating the research credit (sec. 41) and the
Puerto Rico economic activity credit (sec. 30A). It is
arguable that the present-law provisions could be construed
so that the amount of wages on which a taxpayer could claim
the section 30A credit is reduced only by the amount of
credit claimed under section 41, rather than by the amount of
wages upon which the section 41 credit is based. This result
is inconsistent with the legislative history of the original
provisions. The provision deletes the words ``or credit''
after ``deduction'' in section 280C(c)(1), and adds a new
subsection in section 30A specifying that wages or other
expenses taken into account for section 30A may not be taken
into account for section 41.
Taxable REIT subsidiaries.--The provision clarifies that a
REIT's redetermined rents (described in sec. 857(b)(7)(B))
that are subject to tax under section 857(b)(7)(A) do not
include amounts received from a taxable REIT subsidiary that
would be excluded from unrelated business taxable income
(under sec. 512(b)(3), relating to certain rents, if received
by certain types of organizations described in sec.
511(a)(2)).
Partnership basis adjustments.--The provision provides that
the rule in the consolidated return regulations (Treas. Reg.
sec. 1.1502-34) aggregating stock ownership for purposes of
section 332 (relating to complete liquidation of a subsidiary
that is a controlled corporation) also applies for purposes
of section 732(f) (relating to basis adjustments to assets of
a controlled corporation received in a partnership
distribution).
Amendments related to the Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act
of 1998 (sec. 722 of the bill)
Exempt organizations.--The provision clarifies that
nonexempt charitable trusts and nonexempt private foundations
are subject to the public disclosure requirements of section
6104(d).
Capital gains.--The provision clarifies that if (1) a
charitable remainder trust sold section 1250 property after
July 28, 1997, and before January 1, 1998, (2) the property
was held more than one year but not more than 18 months, and
(3) the capital gain is distributed after December 31, 1997,
then any capital gain attributable to depreciation will be
taxed at 25 percent (rather than 28 percent). Treasury has
published a notice (Notice 99-17, 1999-14 I.R.B., April 5,
1999) providing that the gain is taxed at 25 percent.
Amendments related to the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (sec. 723 of the
bill)
Innocent spouse
Timing of request for relief.--Confusion currently exists
as to the appropriate point at which a request for innocent
spouse relief should be made by the taxpayer and considered
by the IRS. Some have read the statute to prohibit
consideration by the IRS of requests for relief until after
an assessment has been made, i.e., after the examination has
been concluded, and if challenged, judicially determined.
Others have read the statute to permit claims for relief from
deficiencies to be made upon the filing of the return before
any preliminary determination as to whether a deficiency
exists or whether the return will be examined. The
consideration of innocent spouse relief requires that the IRS
focus on the particular items causing a deficiency; until
such items are identified, the IRS cannot consider these
claims. Congress did not intend that taxpayers be prohibited
from seeking innocent spouse relief until after an assessment
has been made; Congress intended the proper time to raise
[[Page 24493]]
and have the IRS consider a claim to be at the same point
where a deficiency is being considered and asserted by the
IRS. This is the least disruptive for both the taxpayer and
the IRS since it allows both to focus on the innocent spouse
issue while also focusing on the items that might cause a
deficiency. It also permits every issue, including the
innocent spouse issue, to be resolved in single
administrative and judicial process. The bill clarifies the
intended time by permitting the election under (b) and (c) to
be made at any point after a deficiency has been asserted by
the IRS. A deficiency is considered to have been asserted by
the IRS at the time the IRS states that additional taxes may
be owed. Most commonly, this occurs during the Examination
process. It does not require an assessment to have been made,
nor does it require the exhaustion of administrative remedies
in order for a taxpayer to be permitted to request innocent
spouse relief.
Allowance of refunds.--The current placement in the statute
of the provision for allowance of refunds may inappropriately
suggest that the provision applies only to the United States
Tax Court, whereas it was intended to apply administratively
and in all courts. The bill clarifies this by moving the
provision to its own subsection.
Non-exclusivity of judicial remedy.--Some have suggested
that the IRS Restructuring Act administrative and judicial
process for innocent spouse relief was intended to be the
exclusive avenue by which relief could be sought. The bill
clarifies Congressional intent that the procedures of section
6015(e) were intended to be additional, non-exclusive avenues
by which innocent spouse relief could be considered.
Time for filing a petition with the Tax Court.--As enacted,
the time period for seeking a redetermination in the Tax
Court of innocent spouse relief begins on the date of the
determination as opposed to the day after the determination.
This period is one day shorter than that generally applicable
to petition the Tax Court with respect to a deficiency notice
(sec. 6213) and the period during which collection activities
are prohibited and the limitations period is suspended. The
bill clarifies the computation of this period and conforms it
to the generally applicable 90-day period for petitioning the
Tax Court. Conforming amendments are made as to the period
for which collection activities are prohibited and collection
limitations suspended.
Waiver of final determination upon agreement as to
relief.--Congress intended in enacting section 6015 to
provide a simple and efficient procedure by which the IRS
could consider relief, and if relief was denied (in whole or
in part) and the spouse requesting such relief did not agree
with such denial, such issue could be considered by the Tax
Court. Congress did not intend to require a rigid formal
process when the IRS and the spouse requesting relief agreed
on the extent of relief to be granted. However, the
provisions of section 6015(e) have been interpreted as
requiring the issuance in all circumstances of a formal
``Notice of Determination,'' which contains a statement of
the time period within which a petition may be filed with the
Tax Court and which delays final resolution of the request
for relief until the expiration of the period for filing a
petition with the Tax Court. The issuance of the Notice of
Determination is confusing to the taxpayer when the requested
relief was fully granted or when the IRS and the taxpayer
otherwise agreed on the application of the innocent spouse
provisions to the taxpayer's case. It also may cause
unnecessary filings with the Tax Court and delay the closing
of the case until the time for filing with the Tax Court
expires.
Congress has addressed the analogous situation in the
deficiency context in section 6213(d). In such situations,
upon written agreement, the IRS may adjust the taxpayer's
liability as agreed, and no additional formal notice is
necessary. The bill reflects that an analogous waiver was
intended to apply in the innocent spouse context. The bill
consequently permits taxpayers and the IRS to enter into a
similar written agreement in innocent spouse cases, which
allows for the taxpayer's liability to be immediately
adjusted as agreed, and makes unnecessary a formal Notice of
Determination or Tax Court review. This written agreement is
to specify the details of the agreement between the IRS and
the taxpayer as to the nature and extent of innocent spouse
relief that will be provided. Conforming amendments are made
as to the period for which collection activities are
prohibited and collection limitations suspended.
Procedural and administrative issues
Disputes involving $50,000 or less.--The provision
clarifies that the small case procedures of the Tax Court are
available with respect to innocent spouse disputes and
disputes continuing from the pre-levy administrative due
process hearing. The small case procedures provide an
accessible forum for taxpayers who have small claims with
less formal rules of evidence and procedure. Use of the
procedure is optional to the taxpayer, with the concurrence
of the Tax Court. In view of the recent enactment of the
innocent spouse and pre-levy administrative due process
hearing provisions, it is anticipated that the Tax Court will
give careful consideration to (1) a motion by the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue to remove the small case
designation (as authorized by Rules 172 and 173 of the Tax
Court Rules) when the orderly conduct of the work of the
Court or the administration of the tax laws would be better
served by a regular trial of the case, as well as (2) the
financial impact upon the taxpayer, including additional
legal fees and costs, of not utilizing small case treatment.
For example, removing the small case designation may be
appropriate when a decision in the case will provide a
precedent for the disposition of a substantial number of
other cases. It is anticipated that motions by the
Commissioner to remove the small case designation will be
made infrequently.
Authority to enjoin collection actions.--While a dispute is
pending under the pre-levy administrative due process hearing
procedures, levy action is statutorily suspended for that
period. The Tax Court and district courts are expressly
granted authority to enjoin improper levy action in general,
but that authority does not explicitly extend to improper
levy action that occurs during the period when levy action is
statutorily suspended under the administrative due process
provisions. The provision clarifies the ability of the courts
(including the Tax Court) to enjoin levy during the period
that levy is required to be suspended with respect to a
dispute under the pre-levy administrative due process hearing
procedures.
Clarification of permissible extension of limitations
period for installment agreements.--Uncertainty exists as to
whether the permissible extension of the period of
limitations in the context of installment agreements is
governed by reference to an agreement of the parties pursuant
to section 6502 or by reference to the period of time during
which the installment agreement is in effect pursuant to
sections 6331(k)(3) and (i)(5). The provision clarifies that
the permissible extension of the period of limitations in the
context of installment agreements is governed by the
pertinent provisions of section 6502.
Clarification of Tax Court authority to issue appealable
decisions.--The statutory provision for judicial review of a
dispute concerning the pre-levy administrative due process
hearing may be unclear as to whether a determination of the
Tax Court is an appealable decision. The provision clarifies
that the determination of the Tax Court (other than under the
small case procedures) in a dispute concerning the pre-levy
administrative due process hearing is a decision of the Tax
Court and would be reviewable as such.
Other issues
IRS restructuring.--When the Office of the Chief Inspector
was replaced by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration (TIGTA) under the IRS Restructuring and Reform
Act of 1998, Inspection's responsibilities were assigned to
the TIGTA. TIGTA personnel are Treasury, rather than IRS,
personnel. TIGTA personnel still need to make investigative
disclosures to carry out the duties they took over from
Inspection and their additional tax administration
responsibilities. However, section 6103(k)(6) refers only to
``internal revenue'' personnel. The provision clarifies that
section 6103(k)(6) permits TIGTA personnel to make
investigative disclosures.
Compliance.--Section 3509 of the IRS Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998 expanded the disclosure rules of section
6110 to also cover Chief Counsel advice (sec. 6110(i)). This
is a conforming change related to ongoing investigations. The
provision adds to section 6110(g)(5)(A), after the words
technical advice memorandum, ``or Chief Counsel advice.''
Amendments related to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (sec.
724 of the bill)
Deficiency created by overstatement of refundable child
credit.--The provision treats the refundable portion of the
child credit under section 24(d) as part of a ``deficiency.''
Thus, the usual assessment procedures applicable to income
taxes will apply to both the nonrefundable and the refundable
portions of the child credit. (This will reverse the
conclusion reached by Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel
Memorandum 199948027 interpreting present law.)
Roth IRAs.--Code section 3405 provides for withholding with
respect to designated distributions from certain tax-favored
arrangements, including IRAs. In general, section
3405(e)(1)(B)(ii) excludes from the definition of a
designated distribution the portion of any distribution which
it is reasonable to believe is excludable from gross income.
However, all distributions from IRAs are treated as
includible in income. The exception was consistent with prior
law when all IRA distributions were taxable, but does not
account for the tax-free nature of certain Roth IRA
distributions. The provision extends the exception to Roth
IRAs.
Capital gain election.--The provision provides that an
election to recognize gain or loss made pursuant to section
311(e) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 does not apply to
assets disposed of in a recognition transaction within one
year of the date the election would otherwise have been
effective. Thus, for example, if an asset is sold in 2001, no
election may be made with respect to that asset. In addition,
it is clarified that the deemed sale and repurchase by reason
of
[[Page 24494]]
the election is not taken into account in applying the wash
sale rules of section 1091.
Straight-line depreciation under AMT.--The provision
clarifies that the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 did not change
the requirement that the straight-line method of depreciation
be used in computing the alternative minimum tax (``AMT'')
depreciation allowance for section 1250 property. It is
arguable that the changes made by that Act could be read as
inadvertently allowing accelerated depreciation under the AMT
for section 1250 property which is allowed accelerated
depreciation under the regular tax.
Transportation benefits.--Under present law, salary
reduction amounts are generally treated as compensation for
purposes of the limits on contributions and benefits under
qualified plans. In addition, an employer can elect whether
or not to include such amounts for nondiscrimination testing
purposes. The IRS Reform Act permitted employers to offer a
cash option in lieu of qualified transportation benefits. The
provision treats salary reduction amounts used for qualified
transportation benefits the same as other salary reduction
amounts for purposes of defining compensation under the
qualified plan rules.
Tax Court jurisdiction.--The Tax Court recently held that
its jurisdiction pursuant to section 7436 extends only to
employment status, not to the amount of employment tax in
dispute (Henry Randolph Consulting v. Comm'r, 112 T.C. #1,
Jan. 6, 1999). The provision provides that the Tax Court also
has jurisdiction over the amount.
Amendments related to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (sec.
725 of the bill)
Tobacco floor stocks tax.--The provision clarifies that the
floor stocks taxes imposed on January 1, 2000, and January 1,
2002, apply only to cigarettes rather than to all tobacco
products. As enacted, the law could be construed as
ambiguous, referring to imposition on all tobacco products
but imposing liability only with respect to cigarettes.
Tobacco excise tax.--Conforming amendments are provided to
two provisions to reflect the fact that the tax on cigarette
papers is not imposed on ``books'' of papers since January 1,
2000.
Coordination of trade rules and tobacco excise tax.--
Clarification is provided that the penalty on reimporting
cigarettes other than for return to a manufacturer (effective
January 1, 2000) does not apply to cigarettes re-imported by
individuals to the extent those cigarettes can be entered
into the U.S. without duty or tax under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule.
Amendment related to the Small Business Job Protection Act of
1996 (sec. 726 of the bill)
Work opportunity tax credit.--Section 51(d)(2) refers to
eligibility for the work opportunity tax credit with respect
to certain welfare recipients without taking into account the
enactment of the temporary assistance for needy families
(``TANF'') program. The provisions conform references in the
work opportunity tax credit to the operation of TANF.
Electing small business trusts holding S corporation
stock.--The provision allows an electing small business trust
(sec. 1361(e)) to have an organization described in section
170(c)(1) (relating to State and local governments) as a
beneficiary if the organization holds a contingent interest
and is not a potential current beneficiary.
Definition of lump-sum distribution.--Section 1401(b) of
the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 Act repealed 5-
year averaging for lump-sum distributions. The definition of
lump-sum distribution was preserved for other provisions,
primarily those relating to NUA in employer securities. The
definition was moved from section 402(d)(4)(A) to section
402(e)(4)(D)(i). This definition included the following
sentence: ``A distribution of an annuity contract from a
trust or annuity plan referred to in the first sentence of
this subparagraph shall be treated as a lump sum
distribution.'' The provision adds this language back into
the definition of lump-sum distribution. The sentence is
relevant to section 401(k)(10)(B), which permits certain
distributions if made as a ``lump-sum distribution.''
IRAs for nonworking spouses.--Section 1427 of the Small
Business Job Protection Act of 1996 expanded the IRA
deduction for nonworking spouses. The maximum permitted IRA
contributions is generally limited by the individual's earned
income. However, under present law, it is possible for a
nonworking (or lesser earning) spouse to make IRA
contributions in excess of the couple's combined earned
income. The following example illustrates present law.
Example: Suppose H and W retire in the middle of January,
1999. In that year, H earns $1,000 and W earns $500. Both are
active participants in an employer-sponsored retirement plan.
Their modified AGI is $60,000. They make no Roth IRA
contributions. Before application of the income phase-out
rules, the maximum deductible IRA contribution that H can
make is $1,000 (sec. 219(b)(1)). After application of the
income phase-out rule in section 219(g), H's maximum
contribution is $200, and H contributes that amount to an
IRA. Under 408(o)(2)(B), H can make nondeductible
contributions of $800 ($1,000-$200).
W's maximum permitted deductible contribution under section
219(c)(1)(B), before the income phase-out, is $1,300 (the sum
of H and W's earned income ($1,500), less H's deductible IRA
contribution ($200)). Under the income phase-out, W's
deductible contribution is limited to $200, and she can make
a nondeductible contribution of $1,000 ($1,300-$200).
The total permitted contributions for H and W are $2,300
($1,000 for H plus $1,300 for W). The combined contribution
should be limited to $1,500, their combined earned income.
The provision provides that the contributions for the
spouse with the lesser income cannot exceed the combined
earned income of the spouses.
Amendment related to the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990
(sec. 727 of the bill)
Qualified tertiary injectant expenses.--The provision
clarifies that the enhanced oil recovery credit (sec. 43)
applies with respect to qualified tertiary injectant expenses
described in section 193(b) that are paid or incurred in
connection with a qualified enhanced oil recovery project,
and that are deductible for the taxable year (regardless of
the provision allowing the deduction). Purchased and self-
produced injectants are treated the same for purposes of the
section 43 credit.
Amendments to other acts (sec. 728 of the bill)
Insurance.--The legislative history of section 7702A(a)
(enacted in the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of
1988) indicated that if a life insurance contract became a
modified endowment contract (``MEC''), then the MEC status
could not be eliminated by exchanging the MEC for another
contract. Section 7702A(a)((2), however, arguably might be
read to allow a policyholder to exchange a MEC for a contract
that does not fail the 7-pay test of section 7702A(b), then
exchange the second contract for a third contract, which
would not literally have been received in exchange for a
contract that failed to meet the 7-pay test. The provision
clarifies section 7702A(a)(2) to correspond to the
legislative history, effective as if enacted with the
Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (generally,
for contracts entered into on or after June 21, 1988).
Insurance.--Under section 7702A, if a life insurance
contract that is not a modified endowment contract is
actually or deemed exchanged for a new life insurance
contract, then the 7-pay limit under the new contract is
first be computed without reference to the premium paid using
the cash surrender value of the old contract, and then would
be reduced by 1/7 of the premium paid taking into account the
cash surrender value of the old contract. For example, if the
old contract had a cash surrender value of $14,000 and the 7-
pay premium on the new contract would equal $10,000 per year
but for the fact that there was an exchange, the 7-pay
premium on the new contract would equal $8,000 ($10,000-
$14,000/7). However, section 7702A(c)(3)(A) arguably might be
read to suggest that if the cash surrender value on the new
contract was $0 in the first two years (due to surrender
charges), then the 7-pay premium might be $10,000 in this
example, unintentionally permitting policyholders to engage
in a series of ``material changes'' to circumvent the premium
limitations in section 7702A. The provision clarifies section
7702A(c)(3)(A) to refer to the cash surrender value of the
old contract, effective as if enacted with the Technical and
Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (generally, for contracts
entered into on or after June 21, 1988).
Worthless securities.--Section 165(g)(3) provides a special
rule for worthless securities of an affiliated corporation.
The test for affiliation in section 165(g)(3)(A) is the 80-
percent vote test for affiliated groups under section 1504(a)
that was in effect prior to 1984. When section 1504(a) was
amended in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 to adopt the
vote and value test of present law, no corresponding change
was made to section 165(g)(3)(A), even though the tests had
been identical until then. The provision conforms the
affiliation test of section 165(g)(3)(A) to the test in
section 1504(a)(2), effective for taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1984.
Exception for certain annuities under OID rules.--The
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 expanded the prior-law rules
for inclusion in income of original issue discount (``OID'')
on debt instruments. That Act provided an exception from the
definition of a debt instrument for certain annuity
contracts, including any annuity contract to which section 72
applies and that is issued by an insurance company subject to
tax under subchapter L of the Code (and meets certain other
requirements) (sec. 1275(a)(1)(B)(ii)). The provision
clarifies that an annuity contract otherwise meeting the
applicable requirements also comes within the exception of
section 1275(a)(1)(B)(ii) if it is issued by an entity
described in section 501(c) and exempt from tax under section
501(a), that would be subject to tax as an insurance company
under subchapter L if it were not exempt under section
501(a). For example, the provision clarifies that an annuity
contract otherwise meeting the requirements that is issued by
a fraternal beneficiary society which is exempt from Federal
income tax under section
[[Page 24495]]
501(a), and which is described in section 501(c)(8), comes
within the exception under section 1275(a)(1)(B)(ii).
However, an annuity contract issued by a foreign insurer that
is not subject to tax in the U.S. as an insurance company
under subchapter L with respect to the contract does not come
within the exception under section 1275(a)(1)(B)(ii). It is
understood that charitable gift annuities (as defined in sec.
501(m)) depend (in whole or in substantial part) on the life
expectancy of one or more individuals, and thus come within
the exception under section 1275(a)(1)(B)(i). The provision
is effective as if included with section 41 of the Deficit
Reduction Act of 1984 (i.e., for taxable years ending after
July 18, 1984).
Losses from section 1256 contracts.--Section 6411 allows
tentative refunds for NOL carrybacks, business credit
carrybacks and, for corporations only, capital loss
carrybacks. Individuals normally cannot carry back a capital
loss. However, section 1212(c) does allow a carryback of
section 1256 losses, if elected by the taxpayer. The
provision amends section 6411(a) by including a reference to
section 1212(c), effective as if included with section 504 of
the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.
Highway Trust Fund.--The provision modifies administrative
procedures of the Highway Trust Fund to conform to the 1993
repeal of the special tax rate applicable to ethanol prior to
1994. The provision is effective for taxes received after the
date of enactment. This ensures that retroactive adjustments,
if any, are not made to the Highway Trust Fund.
Conforming amendment for expenditures from Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund.--The provision makes a conforming
amendment to the expenditure purposes of the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund to enable certain payments to be made
from the Trust Fund.
Clerical changes (sec. 729 of the bill)
The bill makes a number of clerical and typographical
amendments to the Code.
EXCLUSION FROM PAYGO SCORECARD
present law
Under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985, as amended, tax reduction legislation is subject to
a ``pay-as-you-go'' (PAYGO) requirement. The PAYGO system
tracks legislation that may increase budget deficits using a
``scorecard'' (estimated by the Office of Management and
Budget). Any revenue loss would have to be offset by other
revenue increases, reductions in direct spending or a
combination of the two.
house bill
No provision.
senate amendment
No provision.
conference agreement
The conference agreement provides that, upon enactment of
the Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall not make any estimate of the changes in direct spending
outlays and receipts under section 252(d) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 resulting
from the enactment of the Act.
TAX COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS
The following tax complexity analysis is provided pursuant
to section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998, which requires the staff of the
Joint Committee on Taxation (in consultation with the
Internal Revenue Service (``IRS'') and the Treasury
Department) to provide a complexity analysis of tax
legislation reported by the House Committee on Ways and
Means, the Senate Committee on Finance, or a Conference
Report containing tax provisions. The complexity analysis is
required to report on the complexity and administrative
issues raised by provisions that directly or indirectly amend
the Internal Revenue Code and that have widespread
applicability to individuals or small businesses. For each
such provision identified by the staff of the Joint Committee
on Taxation, a summary description of the provision is
provided, along with an estimate of the number of affected
taxpayers, and a discussion regarding the relevant complexity
and administrative issues. Time constraints prevented the
staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation from consulting with
the IRS regarding the provisions in the conference agreement
that have widespread applicability.
1. Increase deduction for business meals (sec. 204 of the
conference agreement)
Summary description of provision
The provision increases the deductible percentage of
business meal (food and beverage) expenses to 70 percent,
effective for taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
Number of affected taxpayers
It is estimated that almost all small businesses will be
affected by the provision.
Discussion
Because the provision increases the percentage deduction
only with respect to meals and not entertainment, small
businesses may have to keep additional records to distinguish
between the two types of expenditures. The provision may lead
to additional disputes between small businesses and the IRS
regarding the nature of an expenditure, particularly in
business situations where the meal and entertainment is
provided as a package for a single price. No new regulatory
changes would be needed to implement the provision (although
a conforming change to regulations to reflect the increasing
percentage would be appropriate).
2. Accelerate 100-percent self-employed health insurance
deduction (sec. 301 of the conference agreement)
Summary description of provision
The provision accelerates the increase in the deduction for
health insurance expenses of self-employed individuals so
that the deduction is 100 percent in years beginning after
December 31, 2000.
Number of affected taxpayers
It is estimated that the provision will affect three
million small businesses.
Discussion
It is not anticipated that individuals or small businesses
will need to keep additional records due to the provision. It
is not anticipated that the provision will result in an
increase in disputes with the IRS, or increase tax return
preparation costs. It is not anticipated that regulatory
guidance will be needed to implement the provision.
Accelerating the 100-percent deduction may simplify the
preparation of tax returns for self-employed individuals,
because they will no longer need to keep track of the percent
of health insurance expenses that are deductible, and will
need to perform one less calculation.
[[Page 24496]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.020
[[Page 24497]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.021
[[Page 24498]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.022
[[Page 24499]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.023
[[Page 24500]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.024
[[Page 24501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.025
[[Page 24502]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.026
[[Page 24503]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.027
[[Page 24504]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.028
[[Page 24505]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.029
[[Page 24506]]
medicare, medicaid, and schip benefits improvement and protection act
of 2000
The conference agreement would enact the provisions of H.R.
5543, as introduced on October 25, 2000. The text of that
bill follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT;
REFERENCES TO OTHER ACTS; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
of 2000''.
(b) Amendments to Social Security Act.--Except as otherwise
specifically provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is
expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of a section
or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be
made to that section or other provision of the Social
Security Act.
(c) References to Other Acts.--In this Act:
(1) Balanced budget act of 1997.--The term ``BBA'' means
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat.
251).
(2) Medicare, medicaid, and schip balanced budget
refinement act of 1999.--The term ``BBRA'' means the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act
of 1999 (Appendix F, 113 Stat. 1501A-321), as enacted into
law by section 1000(a)(6) of Public Law 106-113.
(d) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; amendments to Social Security Act; references to
other Acts; table of contents.
TITLE I--MEDICARE BENEFICIARY IMPROVEMENTS
Subtitle A--Improved Preventive Benefits
Sec. 101. Coverage of biennial screening pap smear and pelvic exams.
Sec. 102. Coverage of screening for glaucoma.
Sec. 103. Coverage of screening colonoscopy for average risk
individuals.
Sec. 104. Modernization of screening mammography benefit.
Sec. 105. Coverage of medical nutrition therapy services for
beneficiaries with diabetes or a renal disease.
Subtitle B--Other Beneficiary Improvements
Sec. 111. Acceleration of reduction of beneficiary copayment for
hospital outpatient department services.
Sec. 112. Preservation of coverage of drugs and biologicals under part
B of the medicare program.
Sec. 113. Elimination of time limitation on medicare benefits for
immunosuppressive drugs.
Sec. 114. Imposition of billing limits on prescription drugs.
Subtitle C--Demonstration Projects and Studies
Sec. 121. Demonstration project for disease management for severely
chronically ill medicare beneficiaries.
Sec. 122. Cancer prevention and treatment demonstration for ethnic and
racial minorities.
Sec. 123. Study on medicare coverage of routine thyroid screening.
Sec. 124. MedPAC study on consumer coalitions.
Sec. 125. Study on limitation on State payment for medicare cost-
sharing affecting access to services for qualified
medicare beneficiaries.
Sec. 126. Institute of Medicine study on waiver of 24-month waiting
period for medicare disability eligibility for
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and other devastating
diseases.
Sec. 127. Studies on preventive interventions in primary care for older
Americans.
Sec. 128. MedPAC study and report on medicare coverage of cardiac and
pulmonary rehabilitation therapy services.
TITLE II--RURAL HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENTS
Subtitle A--Critical Access Hospital Provisions
Sec. 201. Clarification of no beneficiary cost-sharing for clinical
diagnostic laboratory tests furnished by critical access
hospitals.
Sec. 202. Assistance with fee schedule payment for professional
services under all-inclusive rate.
Sec. 203. Exemption of critical access hospital swing beds from SNF
PPS.
Sec. 204. Payment in critical access hospitals for emergency room on-
call physicians.
Sec. 205. Treatment of ambulance services furnished by certain critical
access hospitals.
Sec. 206. GAO study on certain eligibility requirements for critical
access hospitals.
Subtitle B--Other Rural Hospitals Provisions
Sec. 211. Equitable treatment for rural disproportionate share
hospitals.
Sec. 212. Option to base eligibility for medicare dependent, small
rural hospital program on discharges during 2 of the 3
most recently audited cost reporting periods.
Sec. 213. Extension of option to use rebased target amounts to all sole
community hospitals.
Sec. 214. MedPAC analysis of impact of volume on per unit cost of rural
hospitals with psychiatric units.
Subtitle C--Other Rural Provisions
Sec. 221. Assistance for providers of ambulance services in rural
areas.
Sec. 222. Payment for certain physician assistant services.
Sec. 223. Revision of medicare reimbursement for telehealth services.
Sec. 224. Expanding access to rural health clinics.
Sec. 225. MedPAC study on low-volume, isolated rural health care
providers.
TITLE III--PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART A
Subtitle A--Inpatient Hospital Services
Sec. 301. Revision of acute care hospital payment update for 2001.
Sec. 302. Additional modification in transition for indirect medical
education (IME) percentage adjustment.
Sec. 303. Decrease in reductions for disproportionate share hospital
(DSH) payments.
Sec. 304. Wage index improvements.
Sec. 305. Payment for inpatient services of rehabilitation hospitals.
Sec. 306. Payment for inpatient services of psychiatric hospitals.
Sec. 307. Payment for inpatient services of long-term care hospitals.
Subtitle B--Adjustments to PPS Payments for Skilled Nursing Facilities
Sec. 311. Elimination of reduction in skilled nursing facility (SNF)
market basket update in 2001.
Sec. 312. Increase in nursing component of PPS Federal rate.
Sec. 313. Application of SNF consolidated billing requirement limited
to part A covered stays.
Sec. 314. Adjustment of rehabilitation RUGs to correct anomaly in
payment rates.
Sec. 315. Establishment of process for geographic reclassification.
Subtitle C--Hospice Care
Sec. 321. Full market basket increase for 2001.
Sec. 322. Clarification of physician certification.
Sec. 323. MedPAC report on access to, and use of, hospice benefit.
Subtitle D--Other Provisions
Sec. 331. Relief from medicare part A late enrollment penalty for group
buy-in for State and local retirees.
Sec. 332. Posting of information on nursing facility staffing.
TITLE IV--PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART B
Subtitle A--Hospital Outpatient Services
Sec. 401. Revision of hospital outpatient PPS payment update.
Sec. 402. Clarifying process and standards for determining eligibility
of devices for pass-through payments under hospital
outpatient PPS.
Sec. 403. Application of OPD PPS transitional corridor payments to
certain hospitals that did not submit a 1996 cost report.
Sec. 404. Application of rules for determining provider-based status
for certain entities.
Sec. 405. Treatment of children's hospitals under prospective payment
system.
Sec. 406. Inclusion of temperature monitored cryoablation in
transitional pass-through for certain medical devices,
drugs, and biologicals under OPD PPS.
Subtitle B--Provisions Relating to Physicians' Services
Sec. 411. GAO studies relating to physicians' services.
Sec. 412. Physician group practice demonstration.
Sec. 413. Study on enrollment procedures for groups that retain
independent contractor physicians.
Subtitle C--Other Services
Sec. 421. 1-year extension of moratorium on therapy caps; report on
standards for supervision of physical therapy assistants.
Sec. 422. Update in renal dialysis composite rate.
Sec. 423. Payment for ambulance services.
Sec. 424. Ambulatory surgical centers.
Sec. 425. Full update for durable medical equipment.
Sec. 426. Full update for orthotics and prosthetics.
Sec. 427. Establishment of special payment provisions and requirements
for prosthetics and certain custom fabricated orthotic
items.
Sec. 428. Replacement of prosthetic devices and parts.
Sec. 429. Revised part B payment for drugs and biologicals and related
services.
Sec. 430. Contrast enhanced diagnostic procedures under hospital
prospective payment system.
Sec. 431. Qualifications for community mental health centers.
Sec. 432. Modification of medicare billing requirements for certain
Indian providers.
Sec. 433. GAO study on coverage of surgical first assisting services of
certified registered nurse first assistants.
Sec. 434. MedPAC study and report on medicare reimbursement for
services provided by certain providers.
Sec. 435. MedPAC study and report on medicare coverage of services
provided by certain nonphysician providers.
[[Page 24507]]
Sec. 436. GAO study and report on the costs of emergency and medical
transportation services.
Sec. 437. GAO studies and reports on medicare payments.
Sec. 438. MedPAC study on access to outpatient pain management
services.
TITLE V--PROVISIONS RELATING TO PARTS A AND B
Subtitle A--Home Health Services
Sec. 501. 1-year additional delay in application of 15 percent
reduction on payment limits for home health services.
Sec. 502. Restoration of full home health market basket update for home
health services for fiscal year 2001.
Sec. 503. Temporary two-month extension of periodic interim payments.
Sec. 504. Use of telehealth in delivery of home health services.
Sec. 505. Study on costs to home health agencies of purchasing
nonroutine medical supplies.
Sec. 506. Treatment of branch offices; GAO study on supervision of home
health care provided in isolated rural areas.
Sec. 507. Clarification of the homebound definition under the medicare
home health benefit.
Subtitle B--Direct Graduate Medical Education
Sec. 511. Increase in floor for direct graduate medical education
payments.
Sec. 512. Change in distribution formula for Medicare+Choice-related
nursing and allied health education costs.
Subtitle C--Changes in Medicare Coverage and Appeals Process
Sec. 521. Revisions to medicare appeals process.
Sec. 522. Revisions to medicare coverage process.
Subtitle D--Improving Access to New Technologies
Sec. 531. Reimbursement improvements for new clinical laboratory tests
and durable medical equipment.
Sec. 532. Retention of HCPCS level III codes.
Sec. 533. Recognition of new medical technologies under inpatient
hospital PPS.
Subtitle E--Other Provisions
Sec. 541. Increase in reimbursement for bad debt.
Sec. 542. Treatment of certain physician pathology services under
medicare.
Sec. 543. Extension of advisory opinion authority.
Sec. 544. Change in annual MedPAC reporting.
Sec. 545. Development of patient assessment instruments.
Sec. 546. GAO report on impact of the Emergency Medical Treatment and
Active Labor Act (EMTALA) on hospital emergency
departments.
TITLE VI--PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART C (MEDICARE+CHOICE PROGRAM) AND
OTHER MEDICARE MANAGED CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Medicare+Choice Payment Reforms
Sec. 601. Increase in minimum payment amount.
Sec. 602. Increase in minimum percentage increase.
Sec. 603. 10-year phase-in of risk adjustment.
Sec. 604. Transition to revised Medicare+Choice payment rates.
Sec. 605. Revision of payment rates for ESRD patients enrolled in
Medicare+Choice plans.
Sec. 606. Permitting premium reductions as additional benefits under
Medicare+Choice plans.
Sec. 607. Full implementation of risk adjustment for congestive heart
failure enrollees for 2001.
Sec. 608. Expansion of application of Medicare+Choice new entry bonus.
Sec. 609. Report on inclusion of certain costs of the Department of
Veterans Affairs and military facility services in
calculating Medicare+Choice payment rates.
Subtitle B--Other Medicare+Choice Reforms
Sec. 611. Payment of additional amounts for new benefits covered during
a contract term.
Sec. 612. Restriction on implementation of significant new regulatory
requirements mid-year.
Sec. 613. Timely approval of marketing material that follows model
marketing language.
Sec. 614. Avoiding duplicative regulation.
Sec. 615. Election of uniform local coverage policy for Medicare+Choice
plan covering multiple localities.
Sec. 616. Eliminating health disparities in Medicare+Choice program.
Sec. 617. Medicare+Choice program compatibility with employer or union
group health plans.
Sec. 618. Special medigap enrollment antidiscrimination provision for
certain beneficiaries.
Sec. 619. Restoring effective date of elections and changes of
elections of Medicare+Choice plans.
Sec. 620. Permitting ESRD beneficiaries to enroll in another
Medicare+Choice plan if the plan in which they are
enrolled is terminated.
Sec. 621. Providing choice for skilled nursing facility services under
the Medicare+Choice program.
Sec. 622. Providing for accountability of Medicare+Choice plans.
Subtitle C--Other Managed Care Reforms
Sec. 631. 1-year extension of social health maintenance organization
(SHMO) demonstration project.
Sec. 632. Revised terms and conditions for extension of medicare
community nursing organization (CNO) demonstration
project.
Sec. 633. Extension of medicare municipal health services demonstration
projects.
Sec. 634. Service area expansion for medicare cost contracts during
transition period.
TITLE VII--MEDICAID
Sec. 701. DSH payments.
Sec. 702. New prospective payment system for Federally-qualified health
centers and rural health clinics.
Sec. 703. Streamlined approval of continued State-wide section 1115
medicaid waivers.
Sec. 704. Medicaid county-organized health systems.
Sec. 705. Deadline for issuance of final regulation relating to
medicaid upper payment limits.
Sec. 706. Alaska FMAP.
TITLE VIII--STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM
Sec. 801. Special rule for redistribution and availability of unused
fiscal year 1998 and 1999 SCHIP allotments.
Sec. 802. Authority to pay medicaid expansion SCHIP costs from title
XXI appropriation.
TITLE IX--OTHER PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--PACE Program
Sec. 901. Extension of transition for current waivers.
Sec. 902. Continuing of certain operating arrangements permitted.
Sec. 903. Flexibility in exercising waiver authority.
Subtitle B--Outreach to Eligible Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries
Sec. 911. Outreach on availability of medicare cost-sharing assistance
to eligible low-income medicare beneficiaries.
Subtitle C--Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
Sec. 921. Increase in authorization of appropriations for the maternal
and child health services block grant.
Subtitle D--Diabetes
Sec. 931. Increase in appropriations for special diabetes programs for
type I diabetes and Indians.
Sec. 932. Appropriations for Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund.
TITLE I--MEDICARE BENEFICIARY IMPROVEMENTS
Subtitle A--Improved Preventive Benefits
SEC. 101. COVERAGE OF BIENNIAL SCREENING PAP SMEAR AND PELVIC
EXAMS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Biennial screening pap smear.--Section 1861(nn)(1) (42
U.S.C. 1395x(nn)(1)) is amended by striking ``3 years'' and
inserting ``2 years''.
(2) Biennial screening pelvic exam.--Section 1861(nn)(2)
(42 U.S.C. 1395x(nn)(2)) is amended by striking ``3 years''
and inserting ``2 years''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply to items and services furnished on or after July 1,
2001.
SEC. 102. COVERAGE OF SCREENING FOR GLAUCOMA.
(a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (S);
(2) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (T);
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(U) screening for glaucoma (as defined in subsection
(uu)) for individuals determined to be at high risk for
glaucoma, individuals with a family history of glaucoma and
individuals with diabetes;''.
(b) Services Described.--Section 1861 (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``Screening for Glaucoma
``(uu) The term `screening for glaucoma' means a dilated
eye examination with an intraocular pressure measurement, and
a direct ophthalmoscopy or a slit-lamp biomicroscopic
examination for the early detection of glaucoma which is
furnished by or under the direct supervision of an
optometrist or ophthalmologist who is legally authorized to
furnish such services under State law (or the State
regulatory mechanism provided by State law) of the State in
which the services are furnished, as would otherwise be
covered if furnished by a physician or as an incident to a
physician's professional service, if the individual involved
has not had such an examination in the preceding year.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1862(a)(1)(F) (42 U.S.C.
1395y(a)(1)(F)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``and, in the case
of screening for glaucoma, which is performed more frequently
than is provided under section 1861(uu),''.
[[Page 24508]]
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to services furnished on or after January 1,
2002.
SEC. 103. COVERAGE OF SCREENING COLONOSCOPY FOR AVERAGE RISK
INDIVIDUALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1861(pp) (42 U.S.C. 1395x(pp)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``In the case of an
individual at high risk for colorectal cancer, screening
colonoscopy'' and inserting ``Screening colonoscopy''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``In paragraph (1)(C),
an'' and inserting ``An''.
(b) Frequency Limits for Screening Colonoscopy.--Section
1834(d) (42 U.S.C. 1395m(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(E)(ii), by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``or, in the case of an individual
who is not at high risk for colorectal cancer, if the
procedure is performed within the 119 months after a previous
screening colonoscopy'';
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in the heading by striking ``for individuals at high
risk for colorectal cancer'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``for individuals at
high risk for colorectal cancer (as defined in section
1861(pp)(2))'';
(C) in subparagraph (E), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``or for other individuals if the
procedure is performed within the 119 months after a previous
screening colonoscopy or within 47 months after a previous
screening flexible sigmoidoscopy''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to colorectal cancer screening services provided on or
after July 1, 2001.
SEC. 104. MODERNIZATION OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY BENEFIT.
(a) Inclusion in Physician Fee Schedule.--Section
1848(j)(3) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting
``(13),'' after ``(4),''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1834(c) (42 U.S.C.
1395m(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Payment and Standards for Screening Mammography.--
``(1) In general.--With respect to expenses incurred for
screening mammography (as defined in section 1861(jj)),
payment may be made only--
``(A) for screening mammography conducted consistent with
the frequency permitted under paragraph (2); and
``(B) if the screening mammography is conducted by a
facility that has a certificate (or provisional certificate)
issued under section 354 of the Public Health Service Act.
``(2) Frequency covered.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to revision by the Secretary
under subparagraph (B)--
``(i) no payment may be made under this part for screening
mammography performed on a woman under 35 years of age;
``(ii) payment may be made under this part for only one
screening mammography performed on a woman over 34 years of
age, but under 40 years of age; and
``(iii) in the case of a woman over 39 years of age,
payment may not be made under this part for screening
mammography performed within 11 months following the month in
which a previous screening mammography was performed.
``(B) Revision of frequency.--
``(i) Review.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the National Cancer Institute, shall review
periodically the appropriate frequency for performing
screening mammography, based on age and such other factors as
the Secretary believes to be pertinent.
``(ii) Revision of frequency.--The Secretary, taking into
consideration the review made under clause (i), may revise
from time to time the frequency with which screening
mammography may be paid for under this subsection.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) apply with respect to screening mammographies
furnished on or after January 1, 2002.
(d) Payment for New Technologies.--
(1) Tests furnished in 2001.--
(A) Screening.--For a screening mammography (as defined in
section 1861(jj) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395(jj))) furnished during the period beginning on April 1,
2001, and ending on December 31, 2001, that uses a new
technology, payment for such screening mammography shall be
made as follows:
(i) In the case of a technology which directly takes a
digital image (without involving film) and subsequently
analyzes such resulting image with software to identify
possible problem areas, in an amount equal to 150 percent of
the amount of payment under section 1848 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-4) for a bilateral diagnostic mammography (under
HCPCS code 76091) for such year.
(ii) In the case of a technology which allows conversion of
a standard film mammogram into a digital image and
subsequently analyzes such resulting image with software to
identify possible problem areas, in an amount equal to the
limit that would otherwise be applied under section
1834(c)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(c)(3)) for 2001,
increased by $15.
(B) Bilateral diagnostic mammography.--For a bilateral
diagnostic mammography (under HCPCS code 76091) furnished
during the period beginning on April 1, 2001, and ending on
December 31, 2001, that uses a new technology described in
subparagraph (A)(i), payment for such mammography shall be
the amount of payment provided for under such subparagraph.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services may implement the
provisions of this paragraph by program memorandum or
otherwise.
(2) Consideration of new hcpcs code for new technologies
after 2001.--The Secretary shall determine, for such
screening mammographies performed after 2001, whether the
assignment of a new HCPCS code is appropriate for screening
mammography that uses a new technology. If the Secretary
determines that a new code is appropriate for such screening
mammography, the Secretary shall provide for such new code
for such tests furnished after 2001.
(3) New technology described.--For purposes of this
subsection, a new technology with respect to a screening
mammography is an advance in technology with respect to the
test or equipment that results in the following:
(A) A significant increase or decrease in the resources
used in the test or in the manufacture of the equipment.
(B) A significant improvement in the performance of the
test or equipment.
(C) A significant advance in medical technology that is
expected to significantly improve the treatment of medicare
beneficiaries.
(4) HCPCS code defined.--The term ``HCPCS code'' means an
alphanumeric code under the Health Care Financing
Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS).
SEC. 105. COVERAGE OF MEDICAL NUTRITION THERAPY SERVICES FOR
BENEFICIARIES WITH DIABETES OR A RENAL DISEASE.
(a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)),
as amended by section 102(a), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (T), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (U), by inserting ``and'' at the end;
and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(V) medical nutrition therapy services (as defined in
subsection (vv)(1)) in the case of a beneficiary with
diabetes or a renal disease who--
``(i) has not received diabetes outpatient self-management
training services within a time period determined by the
Secretary; and
``(ii) meets such other criteria determined by the
Secretary after consideration of protocols established by
dietitian or nutrition professional organizations;''.
(b) Services Described.--Section 1861 (42 U.S.C. 1395x), as
amended by section 102(b), is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Medical Nutrition Therapy Services; Registered Dietitian or Nutrition
Professional
``(vv)(1) The term `medical nutrition therapy services'
means nutritional diagnostic, therapy, and counseling
services for the purpose of disease management which are
furnished by a registered dietitian or nutrition professional
(as defined in paragraph (2)) pursuant to a referral by a
physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)).
``(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the term `registered
dietitian or nutrition professional' means an individual
who--
``(A) holds a baccalaureate or higher degree granted by a
regionally accredited college or university in the United
States (or an equivalent foreign degree) with completion of
the academic requirements of a program in nutrition or
dietetics, as accredited by an appropriate national
accreditation organization recognized by the Secretary for
this purpose;
``(B) has completed at least 900 hours of supervised
dietetics practice under the supervision of a registered
dietitian or nutrition professional; and
``(C)(i) is licensed or certified as a dietitian or
nutrition professional by the State in which the services are
performed; or
``(ii) in the case of an individual in a State that does
not provide for such licensure or certification, meets such
other criteria as the Secretary establishes.
``(3) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) shall not
apply in the case of an individual who, as of the date of the
enactment of this subsection, is licensed or certified as a
dietitian or nutrition professional by the State in which
medical nutrition therapy services are performed.''.
(c) Payment.--Section 1833(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' before ``(S)''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, and (T) with respect to medical nutrition
therapy services (as defined in section 1861(vv)), the amount
paid shall be 80 percent of the lesser of the actual charge
for the services or 85 percent of the amount determined under
the fee schedule established under section 1848(b) for the
same services if furnished by a physician''.
(d) Application of Limits on Billing.--Section
1842(b)(18)(C) (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(18)(C)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new clause:
``(vi) A registered dietitian or nutrition professional.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to services furnished on or after January 1, 2002.
(f) Study.--Not later than July 1, 2003, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report
that contains recommendations with respect to the expansion
to other medicare beneficiary populations of the medical
nutrition therapy services benefit (furnished under the
amendments made by this section).
Subtitle B--Other Beneficiary Improvements
SEC. 111. ACCELERATION OF REDUCTION OF BENEFICIARY COPAYMENT
FOR HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES.
(a) Reducing the Upper Limit on Beneficiary Copayment.--
[[Page 24509]]
(1) In general.--Section 1833(t)(8)(C) (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)(8)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Limitation on copayment amount.--
``(i) To inpatient hospital deductible amount.--In no case
shall the copayment amount for a procedure performed in a
year exceed the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible
established under section 1813(b) for that year.
``(ii) To specified percentage.--The Secretary shall reduce
the national unadjusted copayment amount for a covered OPD
service (or group of such services) furnished in a year in a
manner so that the effective copayment rate (determined on a
national unadjusted basis) for that service in the year does
not exceed the following percentage:
``(I) For procedures performed in 2001, 60 percent.
``(II) For procedures performed in 2002 or 2003, 55
percent.
``(III) For procedures performed in 2004, 50 percent.
``(IV) For procedures performed in 2005, 45 percent.
``(V) For procedures performed in 2006 and thereafter, 40
percent.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies with respect to services furnished on or after
January 1, 2001.
(b) Construction Regarding Limiting Increases in Cost-
Sharing.--Nothing in this Act or the Social Security Act
shall be construed as preventing a hospital from waiving the
amount of any coinsurance for outpatient hospital services
under the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act that may have been increased as a result of the
implementation of the prospective payment system under
section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)).
(c) GAO Study of Reduction in Medigap Premium Levels
Resulting From Reductions in Coinsurance.--The Comptroller
General of the United States shall work, in concert with the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, to evaluate
the extent to which the premium levels for medicare
supplemental policies reflect the reductions in coinsurance
resulting from the amendment made by subsection (a). Not
later than April 1, 2004, the Comptroller General shall
submit to Congress a report on such evaluation and the extent
to which the reductions in beneficiary coinsurance effected
by such amendment have resulted in actual savings to medicare
beneficiaries.
SEC. 112. PRESERVATION OF COVERAGE OF DRUGS AND BIOLOGICALS
UNDER PART B OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 1861(s)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2))
is amended, in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B), by striking
``(including drugs and biologicals which cannot, as
determined in accordance with regulations, be self-
administered)'' and inserting ``(including drugs and
biologicals which are not usually self-administered by the
patient)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies to drugs and biologicals administered on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 113. ELIMINATION OF TIME LIMITATION ON MEDICARE BENEFITS
FOR IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE DRUGS.
(a) In General.--Section 1861(s)(2)(J) (42 U.S.C.
1395x(s)(2)(J)) is amended by striking ``, but only'' and all
that follows up to the semicolon at the end.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Extended coverage.--Section 1832 (42 U.S.C. 1395k) is
amended--
(A) by striking subsection (b); and
(B) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).
(2) Pass-through; report.--Section 227 of BBRA is amended
by striking subsection (d).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to drugs furnished on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 114. IMPOSITION OF BILLING LIMITS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.
(a) In General.--Section 1842(o) (42 U.S.C. 1395u(o)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A) Payment for a charge for any drug or biological
for which payment may be made under this part may be made
under this part only on an assignment-related basis.
``(B) The provisions of subsection (b)(18)(B) shall apply
to charges for such drugs or biologicals in the same manner
as they apply to services furnished by a practitioner
described in subsection (b)(18)(C).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to items furnished on or after January 1, 2001.
Subtitle C--Demonstration Projects and Studies
SEC. 121. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR DISEASE MANAGEMENT FOR
SEVERELY CHRONICALLY ILL MEDICARE
BENEFICIARIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a demonstration project under this section (in
this section referred to as the ``project'') to demonstrate
the impact on costs and health outcomes of applying disease
management to medicare beneficiaries with diagnosed,
advanced-stage congestive heart failure, diabetes, or
coronary heart disease. In no case may the number of
participants in the project exceed 30,000 at any time.
(b) Voluntary Participation.--
(1) Eligibility.--Medicare beneficiaries are eligible to
participate in the project only if--
(A) they meet specific medical criteria demonstrating the
appropriate diagnosis and the advanced nature of their
disease;
(B) their physicians approve of participation in the
project; and
(C) they are not enrolled in a Medicare+Choice plan.
(2) Benefits.--A beneficiary who is enrolled in the project
shall be eligible--
(A) for disease management services related to their
chronic health condition; and
(B) for payment for all costs for prescription drugs
without regard to whether or not they relate to the chronic
health condition, except that the project may provide for
modest cost-sharing with respect to prescription drug
coverage.
(c) Contracts With Disease Management Organizations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall carry out the project through contracts with up to
three disease management organizations. The Secretary shall
not enter into such a contract with an organization unless
the organization demonstrates that it can produce improved
health outcomes and reduce aggregate medicare expenditures
consistent with paragraph (2).
(2) Contract provisions.--Under such contracts--
(A) such an organization shall be required to provide for
prescription drug coverage described in subsection (b)(2)(B);
(B) such an organization shall be paid a fee negotiated and
established by the Secretary in a manner so that (taking into
account savings in expenditures under parts A and B of the
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security
Act) there will be a net reduction in expenditures under the
medicare program as a result of the project; and
(C) such an organization shall guarantee, through an
appropriate arrangement with a reinsurance company or
otherwise, the net reduction in expenditures described in
subparagraph (B).
(3) Payments.--Payments to such organizations shall be made
in appropriate proportion from the Trust Funds established
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
(d) Application of Medigap Protections to Demonstration
Project Enrollees.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
provisions of section 1882(s)(3) (other than clauses (i)
through (iv) of subparagraph (B)) and 1882(s)(4) of the
Social Security Act shall apply to enrollment (and
termination of enrollment) in the demonstration project under
this section, in the same manner as they apply to enrollment
(and termination of enrollment) with a Medicare+Choice
organization in a Medicare+Choice plan.
(2) In applying paragraph (1)--
(A) any reference in clause (v) or (vi) of section
1882(s)(3)(B) of such Act to 12 months is deemed a reference
to the period of the demonstration project; and
(B) the notification required under section 1882(s)(3)(D)
of such Act shall be provided in a manner specified by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(e) Duration.--The project shall last for not longer than 3
years.
(f) Waiver.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall waive such provisions of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act as may be necessary to provide for payment for
services under the project in accordance with subsection
(c)(3).
(g) Report.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall submit to Congress an interim report on the project not
later than 2 years after the date it is first implemented and
a final report on the project not later than 6 months after
the date of its completion. Such reports shall include
information on the impact of the project on costs and health
outcomes and recommendations on the cost-effectiveness of
extending or expanding the project.
SEC. 122. CANCER PREVENTION AND TREATMENT DEMONSTRATION FOR
ETHNIC AND RACIAL MINORITIES.
(a) Demonstration.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall
conduct demonstration projects (in this section referred to
as ``demonstration projects'') for the purpose of developing
models and evaluating methods that--
(A) improve the quality of items and services provided to
target individuals in order to facilitate reduced disparities
in early detection and treatment of cancer;
(B) improve clinical outcomes, satisfaction, quality of
life, and appropriate use of medicare-covered services and
referral patterns among those target individuals with cancer;
(C) eliminate disparities in the rate of preventive cancer
screening measures, such as pap smears and prostate cancer
screenings, among target individuals; and
(D) promote collaboration with community-based
organizations to ensure cultural competency of health care
professionals and linguistic access for persons with limited
English proficiency.
(2) Target individual defined.--In this section, the term
``target individual'' means an individual of a racial and
ethnic minority group, as defined by section 1707 of the
Public Health Service Act, who is entitled to benefits under
part A, and enrolled under part B, of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act.
(b) Program Design.--
(1) Initial design.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall evaluate
best practices in the private sector, community programs, and
academic research of methods that reduce disparities among
individuals of racial and ethnic minority groups in the
prevention and treatment
[[Page 24510]]
of cancer and shall design the demonstration projects based
on such evaluation.
(2) Number and project areas.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
implement at least 9 demonstration projects, including the
following:
(A) 2 projects for each of the 4 major racial and ethnic
minority groups (American Indians (including Alaska Natives,
Eskimos, and Aleuts); Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders;
Blacks; and Hispanics. The 2 projects must target different
ethnic subpopulations.
(B) 1 project within the Pacific Islands.
(C) At least 1 project each in a rural area and inner-city
area.
(3) Expansion of projects; implementation of demonstration
project results.--If the initial report under subsection (c)
contains an evaluation that demonstration projects--
(A) reduce expenditures under the medicare program under
title XVIII of the Social Security Act; or
(B) do not increase expenditures under the medicare program
and reduce racial and ethnic health disparities in the
quality of health care services provided to target
individuals and increase satisfaction of beneficiaries and
health care providers;
the Secretary shall continue the existing demonstration
projects and may expand the number of demonstration projects.
(c) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date the
Secretary implements the initial demonstration projects, and
biannually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report regarding the demonstration projects.
(2) Contents of report.--Each report under paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) A description of the demonstration projects.
(B) An evaluation of--
(i) the cost-effectiveness of the demonstration projects;
(ii) the quality of the health care services provided to
target individuals under the demonstration projects; and
(iii) beneficiary and health care provider satisfaction
under the demonstration projects.
(C) Any other information regarding the demonstration
projects that the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(d) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary shall waive compliance
with the requirements of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to such extent and for such period as the Secretary
determines is necessary to conduct demonstration projects.
(e) Funding.--
(1) Demonstration projects.--
(A) State projects.--Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), the Secretary shall provide for the transfer from the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Supplementary Insurance Trust Fund under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act, in such proportions as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate, of such funds as are necessary
for the costs of carrying out the demonstration projects.
(B) Territory projects.--In the case of a demonstration
project described in subsection (b)(2)(B), amounts shall be
available only as provided in any Federal law making
appropriations for the territories.
(2) Limitation.--In conducting demonstration projects, the
Secretary shall ensure that the aggregate payments made by
the Secretary do not exceed the sum of the amount which the
Secretary would have paid under the program for the
prevention and treatment of cancer if the demonstration
projects were not implemented, plus $25,000,000.
SEC. 123. STUDY ON MEDICARE COVERAGE OF ROUTINE THYROID
SCREENING.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall request the National Academy of Sciences, and as
appropriate in conjunction with the United States Preventive
Services Task Force, to conduct a study on the addition of
coverage of routine thyroid screening using a thyroid
stimulating hormone test as a preventive benefit provided to
medicare beneficiaries under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act for some or all medicare beneficiaries. In
conducting the study, the Academy shall consider the short-
term and long-term benefits, and costs to the medicare
program, of such addition.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit a report on the findings of the study
conducted under subsection (a) to the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate.
SEC. 124. MEDPAC STUDY ON CONSUMER COALITIONS.
(a) Study.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission shall
conduct a study that examines the use of consumer coalitions
in the marketing of Medicare+Choice plans under the medicare
program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act. The
study shall examine--
(1) the potential for increased efficiency in the medicare
program through greater beneficiary knowledge of their health
care options, decreased marketing costs of Medicare+Choice
organizations, and creation of a group market;
(2) the implications of Medicare+Choice plans and medicare
supplemental policies (under section 1882 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ss)) offering medicare
beneficiaries in the same geographic location different
benefits and premiums based on their affiliation with a
consumer coalition;
(3) how coalitions should be governed, how they should be
accountable to the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
and how potential conflicts of interest in the activities of
consumer coalitions should be avoided; and
(4) how such coalitions should be funded.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a). The report shall include a recommendation on whether and
how a demonstration project might be conducted for the
operation of consumer coalitions under the medicare program.
(c) Consumer Coalition Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``consumer coalition'' means a nonprofit,
community-based group of organizations that--
(1) provides information to medicare beneficiaries about
their health care options under the medicare program; and
(2) negotiates benefits and premiums for medicare
beneficiaries who are members or otherwise affiliated with
the group of organizations with Medicare+Choice organizations
offering Medicare+Choice plans, issuers of medicare
supplemental policies, issuers of long-term care coverage,
and pharmacy benefit managers.
SEC. 125. STUDY ON LIMITATION ON STATE PAYMENT FOR MEDICARE
COST-SHARING AFFECTING ACCESS TO SERVICES FOR
QUALIFIED MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a study to determine if access to certain
services (including mental health services) for qualified
medicare beneficiaries has been affected by limitations on a
State's payment for medicare cost-sharing for such
beneficiaries under section 1902(n) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(n)). As part of such study, the
Secretary shall analyze the effect of such payment limitation
on providers who serve a disproportionate share of such
beneficiaries.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report on the study under subsection (a). The report shall
include recommendations regarding any changes that should be
made to the State payment limits under section 1902(n) for
qualified medicare beneficiaries to ensure appropriate access
to services.
SEC. 126. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY ON WAIVER OF 24-MONTH
WAITING PERIOD FOR MEDICARE DISABILITY
ELIGIBILITY FOR AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS
(ALS) AND OTHER DEVASTATING DISEASES.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine to
conduct a study that examines the appropriateness of waiving
the 24-month waiting period for eligibility for benefits
under the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act applicable under section 226(b) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 426(b)) for individuals with a devastating disease.
For purposes of this section, the term ``devastating
disease'' means amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and
includes any other disease that is as rapidly debilitating as
ALS.
(b) Report.--The contract shall provide for the submission
to Congress and the Secretary of a report on the study
conducted under subsection (a) by not later than 18 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 127. STUDIES ON PREVENTIVE INTERVENTIONS IN PRIMARY CARE
FOR OLDER AMERICANS.
(a) Studies.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services,
acting through the United States Preventive Services Task
Force, shall conduct a series of studies designed to identify
preventive interventions that can be delivered in the primary
care setting and that are most valuable to older Americans.
(b) Mission Statement.--The mission statement of the United
States Preventive Services Task Force is amended to include
the evaluation of services that are of particular relevance
to older Americans.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a
report on the conclusions of the studies conducted under
subsection (a), together with recommendations for such
legislation and administrative actions as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
SEC. 128. MEDPAC STUDY AND REPORT ON MEDICARE COVERAGE OF
CARDIAC AND PULMONARY REHABILITATION THERAPY
SERVICES.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
shall conduct a study on coverage of cardiac and pulmonary
rehabilitation therapy services under the medicare program
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
(2) Focus.--In conducting the study under paragraph (1),
the Commission shall focus on the appropriate--
(A) qualifying diagnoses required for coverage of cardiac
and pulmonary rehabilitation therapy services;
(B) level of physician direct involvement and supervision
in furnishing such services; and
(C) level of reimbursement for such services.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection (a)
together with such recommendations for legislation and
administrative action as the Commission determines
appropriate.
[[Page 24511]]
TITLE II--RURAL HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENTS
Subtitle A--Critical Access Hospital Provisions
SEC. 201. CLARIFICATION OF NO BENEFICIARY COST-SHARING FOR
CLINICAL DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY TESTS FURNISHED
BY CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITALS.
(a) Payment Clarification.--Section 1834(g) (42 U.S.C.
1395m(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) No beneficiary cost-sharing for clinical diagnostic
laboratory services.--No coinsurance, deductible, copayment,
or other cost-sharing otherwise applicable under this part
shall apply with respect to clinical diagnostic laboratory
services furnished as an outpatient critical access hospital
service. Nothing in this title shall be construed as
providing for payment for clinical diagnostic laboratory
services furnished as part of outpatient critical access
hospital services, other than on the basis described in this
subsection.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraphs (1)(D)(i) and (2)(D)(i) of section 1833(a)
(42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)) are each amended by striking ``or which
are furnished on an outpatient basis by a critical access
hospital''.
(2) Section 403(d)(2) of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-371) is
amended by striking ``The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply'' and inserting ``Paragraphs (1) through (3) of
section 1834(g) of the Social Security Act (as amended by
paragraph (1)) apply''.
(c) Effective Dates.--The amendment made--
(1) by subsection (a) applies to services furnished on or
after the date of the enactment of BBRA;
(2) by subsection (b)(1) applies as if included in the
enactment of section 403(e)(1) of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-371);
and
(3) by subsection (b)(2) applies as if included in the
enactment of section 403(d)(2) of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-371).
SEC. 202. ASSISTANCE WITH FEE SCHEDULE PAYMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES UNDER ALL-INCLUSIVE RATE.
(a) In General.--Section 1834(g)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C.
1395m(g)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting ``115 percent of''
before ``such amounts''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies with respect to items and services furnished on or
after April 1, 2001.
SEC. 203. EXEMPTION OF CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL SWING BEDS
FROM SNF PPS.
(a) In General.--Section 1888(e)(7) (42 U.S.C.
1395yy(e)(7)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``Transition for'' and
inserting ``Treatment of'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``In general.--The''
and inserting ``Transition.--Subject to subparagraph (C),
the'';
(3) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``(other than
critical access hospitals)'' after ``facilities described in
subparagraph (B)'';
(4) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, for which
payment'' and all that follows before the period; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Exemption from pps of swing-bed services furnished in
critical access hospitals.--The prospective payment system
established under this subsection shall not apply to services
furnished by a critical access hospital pursuant to an
agreement under section 1883.''.
(b) Payment on a Reasonable Cost Basis for Swing Bed
Services Furnished by Critical Access Hospitals.--Section
1883(a) (42 U.S.C. 1395tt(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``(other than a
critical access hospital)'' after ``any hospital''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a
critical access hospital shall be paid for covered skilled
nursing facility services furnished under an agreement
entered into under this section on the basis of the
reasonable costs of such services (as determined under
section 1861(v)).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to cost reporting periods beginning on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 204. PAYMENT IN CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITALS FOR EMERGENCY
ROOM ON-CALL PHYSICIANS.
(a) In General.--Section 1834(g) (42 U.S.C. 1395m(g)), as
amended by section 201(a), is further amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Coverage of costs for emergency room on-call
physicians.--In determining the reasonable costs of
outpatient critical access hospital services under paragraphs
(1) and (2)(A), the Secretary shall recognize as allowable
costs, amounts (as defined by the Secretary) for reasonable
compensation and related costs for emergency room physicians
who are on-call (as defined by the Secretary) but who are not
present on the premises of the critical access hospital
involved, and are not otherwise furnishing physicians'
services and are not on-call at any other provider or
facility.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies to cost reporting periods beginning on or after
October 1, 2001.
SEC. 205. TREATMENT OF AMBULANCE SERVICES FURNISHED BY
CERTAIN CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1834(l) (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Services furnished by critical access hospitals.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the
Secretary shall pay the reasonable costs incurred in
furnishing ambulance services if such services are
furnished--
``(A) by a critical access hospital (as defined in --
section 1861(mm)(1)), or
``(B) by an entity that is owned and operated by a --
critical access hospital,
but only if the critical access hospital or entity is the -
only provider or supplier of ambulance services that is
located within a 35-mile drive of such critical access
hospital.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1833(a)(1)(R) (42 U.S.C.
1395l(a)(1)(R)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``ambulance service,'' and inserting
``ambulance services, (i)''; and
(2) by inserting before the comma at the end the -
following: ``and (ii) with respect to ambulance services
described in section 1834(l)(8), the amounts paid shall be
the amounts determined under section 1834(g) for outpatient
critical access hospital services''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to services furnished on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 206. GAO STUDY ON CERTAIN ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITALS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the eligibility requirements for
critical access hospitals under section 1820(c) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-4(c)) with respect to
limitations on average length of stay and number of beds in
such a hospital, including an analysis of--
(1) the feasibility of having a distinct part unit as part
of a critical access hospital for purposes of the medicare
program under title XVIII of such Act, and
(2) the effect of seasonal variations in patient admissions
on critical access hospital eligibility requirements with
respect to limitations on average annual length of stay and
number of beds.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a) together with recommendations regarding--
(1) whether distinct part units should be permitted as part
of a critical access hospital under the medicare program;
(2) if so permitted, the payment methodologies that should
apply with respect to services provided by such units;
(3) whether, and to what extent, such units should be
included in or excluded from the bed limits applicable to
critical access hospitals under the medicare program; and
(4) any adjustments to such eligibility requirements to
account for seasonal variations in patient admissions.
Subtitle B--Other Rural Hospitals Provisions
SEC. 211. EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR RURAL DISPROPORTIONATE
SHARE HOSPITALS.
(a) Application of Uniform Threshold.--Section
1886(d)(5)(F)(v) (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(v)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (II), by inserting ``(or 15 percent, for
discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2001)'' after ``30
percent'';
(2) in subclause (III), by inserting ``(or 15 percent, for
discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2001)'' after ``40
percent''; and
(3) in subclause (IV), by inserting ``(or 15 percent, for
discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2001)'' after ``45
percent''.
(b) Adjustment of Payment Formulas.--
(1) Sole community hospitals.--Section 1886(d)(5)(F) (42
U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)) is amended--
(A) in clause (iv)(VI), by inserting after ``10 percent''
the following: ``or, for discharges occurring on or after
April 1, 2001, is equal to the percent determined in
accordance with clause (x)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(x) For purposes of clause (iv)(VI) (relating to sole
community hospitals), in the case of a hospital for a cost
reporting period with a disproportionate patient percentage
(as defined in clause (vi)) that--
``(I) is less than 17.3, the disproportionate share
adjustment percentage is determined in accordance with the
following formula: (P-15)(.65) + 2.5;
``(II) is equal to or exceeds 17.3, but is less than 30.0,
such adjustment percentage is equal to 4 percent; or
``(III) is equal to or exceeds 40, such adjustment
percentage is equal to 5 percent,
where `P' is the hospital's disproportionate patient
percentage (as defined in clause (vi)).''.
(2) Rural referral centers.--Such section is further
amended--
(A) in clause (iv)(V), by inserting after ``clause (viii)''
the following: ``or, for discharges occurring on or after
April 1, 2001, is equal to the percent determined in
accordance with clause (xi)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(xi) For purposes of clause (iv)(V) (relating to rural
referral centers), in the case of a hospital for a cost
reporting period with a disproportionate patient percentage
(as defined in clause (vi)) that--
``(I) is less than 17.3, the disproportionate share
adjustment percentage is determined in accordance with the
following formula: (P-15)(.65) + 2.5;
``(II) is equal to or exceeds 17.3, but is less than 30.0,
such adjustment percentage is equal to 4 percent; or
[[Page 24512]]
``(III) is equal to or exceeds 30, such adjustment
percentage is determined in accordance with the following
formula: (P-30)(.6) + 4,
where `P' is the hospital's disproportionate patient
percentage (as defined in clause (vi)).''.
(3) Small rural hospitals generally.--Such section is
further amended--
(A) in clause (iv)(III), by inserting after ``4 percent''
the following: ``or, for discharges occurring on or after
April 1, 2001, is equal to the percent determined in
accordance with clause (xii)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(xii) For purposes of clause (iv)(III) (relating to small
rural hospitals generally), in the case of a hospital for a
cost reporting period with a disproportionate patient
percentage (as defined in clause (vi)) that--
``(I) is less than 17.3, the disproportionate share
adjustment percentage is determined in accordance with the
following formula: (P-15)(.65) + 2.5;
``(II) is equal to or exceeds 17.3, such adjustment
percentage is equal to 4 percent,
where `P' is the hospital's disproportionate patient
percentage (as defined in clause (vi)).''.
(4) Hospitals that are both sole community hospitals and
rural referral centers.--Such section is further amended, in
clause (iv)(IV), by inserting after ``clause (viii)'' the
following: ``or, for discharges occurring on or after April
1, 2001, the greater of the percentages determined under
clause (x) or (xi)''.
(5) Urban hospitals with less than 100 beds.--Such section
is further amended--
(A) in clause (iv)(II), by inserting after ``5 percent''
the following: ``or, for discharges occurring on or after
April 1, 2001, is equal to the percent determined in
accordance with clause (xiii)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(xiii) For purposes of clause (iv)(II) (relating to urban
hospitals with less than 100 beds), in the case of a hospital
for a cost reporting period with a disproportionate patient
percentage (as defined in clause (vi)) that--
``(I) is less than 17.3, the disproportionate share
adjustment percentage is determined in accordance with the
following formula: (P-15)(.65) + 2.5;
``(II) is equal to or exceeds 17.3, but is less than 40.0,
such adjustment percentage is equal to 4 percent; or
``(III) is equal to or exceeds 40, such adjustment
percentage is equal to 5 percent,
where `P' is the hospital's disproportionate patient
percentage (as defined in clause (vi)).''.
SEC. 212. OPTION TO BASE ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDICARE DEPENDENT,
SMALL RURAL HOSPITAL PROGRAM ON DISCHARGES
DURING 2 OF THE 3 MOST RECENTLY AUDITED COST
REPORTING PERIODS.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(G)(iv)(IV) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(G)(iv)(IV)) is amended by inserting ``, or 2 of
the 3 most recently audited cost reporting periods for which
the Secretary has a settled cost report,'' after ``1987''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to cost reporting periods beginning
on or after April 1, 2001.
SEC. 213. EXTENSION OF OPTION TO USE REBASED TARGET AMOUNTS
TO ALL SOLE COMMUNITY HOSPITALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(b)(3)(I)(i) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(b)(3)(I)(i)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking
``that for its cost reporting period beginning during 1999''
and all that follows through ``for such target amount'' and
inserting ``there shall be substituted for the amount
otherwise determined under subsection (d)(5)(D)(i), if such
substitution results in a greater amount of payment under
this section for the hospital'';
(2) in subclause (I), by striking ``target amount otherwise
applicable'' and all that follows through ``target amount')''
and inserting ``the amount otherwise applicable to the
hospital under subsection (d)(5)(D)(i) (referred to in this
clause as the `subsection (d)(5)(D)(i) amount')''; and
(3) in each of subclauses (II) and (III), by striking
``subparagraph (C) target amount'' and inserting ``subsection
(d)(5)(D)(i) amount''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
405 of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-372).
SEC. 214. MEDPAC ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF VOLUME ON PER UNIT
COST OF RURAL HOSPITALS WITH PSYCHIATRIC UNITS.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, in its study
conducted pursuant to subsection (a) of section 411 of BBRA
(113 Stat. 1501A-377), shall include--
(1) in such study an analysis of the impact of volume on
the per unit cost of rural hospitals with psychiatric units;
and
(2) in its report under subsection (b) of such section a
recommendation on whether special treatment for such
hospitals may be warranted.
Subtitle C--Other Rural Provisions
SEC. 221. ASSISTANCE FOR PROVIDERS OF AMBULANCE SERVICES IN
RURAL AREAS.
(a) Transitional Assistance in Certain Mileage Rates.--
Section 1834(l) (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Transitional assistance for rural providers.--In the
case of ground ambulance services furnished on or after the
date on which the Secretary implements the fee schedule under
this subsection and before January 1, 2004, for which the
transportation originates in a rural area (as defined in
section 1886(d)(2)(D)) or in a rural census tract of a
metropolitan statistical area (as determined under the most
recent modification of the Goldsmith Modification, originally
published in the Federal Register on February 27, 1992 (57
Fed. Reg. 6725)), the fee schedule established under this
subsection shall provide that, with respect to the payment
rate for mileage for a trip above 17 miles, and up to 50
miles, the rate otherwise established shall be increased by
not less than \1/2\ of the additional payment per mile
established for the first 17 miles of such a trip originating
in a rural area.''.
(b) GAO Studies on the Costs of Ambulance Services
Furnished in Rural Areas.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on each of the matters described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Matters described.--The matters referred to in
paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) The cost of efficiently providing ambulance services
for trips originating in rural areas, with special emphasis
on collection of cost data from rural providers.
(B) The means by which rural areas with low population
densities can be identified for the purpose of designating
areas in which the cost of providing ambulance services would
be expected to be higher than similar services provided in
more heavily populated areas because of low usage. Such study
shall also include an analysis of the additional costs of
providing ambulance services in areas designated under the
previous sentence.
(3) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2002, the Comptroller
General shall submit to Congress a report on the results of
the studies conducted under paragraph (1) and shall include
recommendations on steps that should be taken to assure
access to ambulance services in rural areas.
(c) Adjustment in Rural Rates.--In providing for
adjustments under subparagraph (D) of section 1834(l)(2) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(2)) for years
beginning with 2004, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall take into consideration the recommendations
contained in the report under subsection (b)(2) and shall
adjust the fee schedule payment rates under such section for
ambulance services provided in low density rural areas based
on the increased cost (if any) of providing such services in
such areas.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies to services furnished on or after the date the
Secretary implements the fee schedule under section 1834(l)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)). In applying
such amendment to services furnished on or after such date
and before January 1, 2002, the amount of the rate increase
provided under such amendment shall be equal to $1.25 per
mile.
SEC. 222. PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT SERVICES.
(a) Payment for Certain Physician Assistant Services.--
Section 1842(b)(6)(C) (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(6)(C)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``for such services provided before January
1, 2003,''; and
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
comma.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 223. REVISION OF MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR TELEHEALTH
SERVICES.
(a) Time Limit for BBA Provision.--Section 4206(a) of BBA
(42 U.S.C. 1395l note) is amended by striking ``Not later
than January 1, 1999'' and inserting ``For services furnished
on and after January 1, 1999, and before July 1, 2001''.
(b) Expansion of Medicare Payment for Telehealth
Services.--Section 1834 (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(m) Payment for Telehealth Services.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall pay for telehealth
services that are furnished via a telecommunications system
by a physician (as defined in section 1861(r)) or a
practitioner (described in section 1842(b)(18)(C)) to an
eligible telehealth individual enrolled under this part
notwithstanding that the individual physician or practitioner
providing the telehealth service is not at the same location
as the beneficiary. For purposes of the preceding sentence,
in the case of any Federal telemedicine demonstration program
conducted in Alaska or Hawaii, the term `telecommunications
system' includes store-and-forward technologies that provide
for the asynchronous transmission of health care information
in single or multimedia formats.
``(2) Payment amount.--
``(A) Distant site.--The Secretary shall pay to a physician
or practitioner located at a distant site that furnishes a
telehealth service to an eligible telehealth individual an
amount equal to the amount that such physician or
practitioner would have been paid under this title had such
service been furnished without the use of a
telecommunications system.
``(B) Facility fee for originating site.--With respect to a
telehealth service, subject to section 1833(a)(1)(U), there
shall be paid to the originating site a facility fee equal
to--
``(i) for the period beginning on July 1, 2001, and ending
on December 31, 2001, and for 2002, $20; and
``(ii) for a subsequent year, the facility fee specified in
clause (i) or this clause for the preceding year increased by
the percentage increase in the MEI (as defined in section
1842(i)(3)) for such subsequent year.
[[Page 24513]]
``(C) Telepresenter not required.--Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed as requiring an eligible
telehealth individual to be presented by a physician or
practitioner at the originating site for the furnishing of a
service via a telecommunications system, unless it is
medically necessary (as determined by the physician or
practitioner at the distant site).
``(3) Limitation on beneficiary charges.--
``(A) Physician and practitioner.--The provisions of
section 1848(g) and subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
1842(b)(18) shall apply to a physician or practitioner
receiving payment under this subsection in the same manner as
they apply to physicians or practitioners under such
sections.
``(B) Originating site.--The provisions of section
1842(b)(18) shall apply to originating sites receiving a
facility fee in the same manner as they apply to
practitioners under such section.
``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Distant site.--The term `distant site' means the site
at which the physician or practitioner is located at the time
the service is provided via a telecommunications system.
``(B) Eligible telehealth individual.--The term `eligible
telehealth individual' means an individual enrolled under
this part who receives a telehealth service furnished at an
originating site.
``(C) Originating site.--
``(i) In general.--The term `originating site' means only
those sites described in clause (ii) at which the eligible
telehealth individual is located at the time the service is
furnished via a telecommunications system and only if such
site is located--
``(I) in an area that is designated as a rural health
professional shortage area under section 332(a)(1)(A) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254e(a)(1)(A));
``(II) in a county that is not included in a Metropolitan
Statistical Area; or
``(III) from an entity that participates in a Federal
telemedicine demonstration project that has been approved by
(or receives funding from) the Secretary of Health and Human
Services as of December 31, 2000.
``(ii) Sites described.--The sites referred to in clause
(i) are the following sites:
``(I) The office of a physician or practitioner.
``(II) A critical access hospital (as defined in section
1861(mm)(1)).
``(III) A rural health clinic (as defined in section
1861(aa)(s)).
``(IV) A Federally qualified health center (as defined in
section 1861(aa)(4)).
``(V) A hospital (as defined in section 1861(e)).
``(D) Physician.--The term ``physician'' has the meaning
given that term in section 1861(r).
``(E) Practitioner.--The term `practitioner' has the
meaning given that term in section 1842(b)(18)(C).
``(F) Telehealth service.--
``(i) In general.--The term `telehealth service' means
professional consultations, office visits, and office
psychiatry services (identified as of July 1, 2000, by HCPCS
codes 99241-99275, 99201-99215, 90804-90809, and 90862 (and
as subsequently modified by the Secretary)), and any
additional service specified by the Secretary.
``(ii) Yearly update.--The Secretary shall establish a
process that provides, on an annual basis, for the addition
or deletion of services (and HCPCS codes), as appropriate, to
those specified in clause (i) for authorized payment under
paragraph (1).''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1833(a)(1) (42 U.S.C.
1395l(1)), as amended by section 105(c), is further amended--
(1) by striking ``and (T)'' and inserting ``(T)''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, and (U) with respect to facility fees
described in section 1834(m)(2)(B), the amounts paid shall be
80 percent of the lesser of the actual charge or the amounts
specified in such section''.
(d) Study and Report on Additional Coverage.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a study to identify--
(A) settings and sites for the provision of telehealth
services that are in addition to those permitted under
section 1834(m) of the Social Security Act, as added by
subsection (b);
(B) practitioners that may be reimbursed under such section
for furnishing telehealth services that are in addition to
the practitioners that may be reimbursed for such services
under such section; and
(C) geographic areas in which telehealth services may be
reimbursed that are in addition to the geographic areas where
such services may be reimbursed under such section.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1) together
with such recommendations for legislation that the Secretary
determines are appropriate.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (b)
and (c) shall be effective for services furnished on or after
July 1, 2001.
SEC. 224. EXPANDING ACCESS TO RURAL HEALTH CLINICS.
(a) In General.--The matter in section 1833(f) (42 U.S.C.
1395l(f)) preceding paragraph (1) is amended by striking
``rural hospitals'' and inserting ``hospitals''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to services furnished on or after July 1, 2001.
SEC. 225. MEDPAC STUDY ON LOW-VOLUME, ISOLATED RURAL HEALTH
CARE PROVIDERS.
(a) Study.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission shall
conduct a study on the effect of low patient and procedure
volume on the financial status of low-volume, isolated rural
health care providers participating in the medicare program
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection (a)
indicating--
(1) whether low-volume, isolated rural health care
providers are having, or may have, significantly decreased
medicare margins or other financial difficulties resulting
from any of the payment methodologies described in subsection
(c);
(2) whether the status as a low-volume, isolated rural
health care provider should be designated under the medicare
program and any criteria that should be used to qualify for
such a status; and
(3) any changes in the payment methodologies described in
subsection (c) that are necessary to provide appropriate
reimbursement under the medicare program to low-volume,
isolated rural health care providers (as designated pursuant
to paragraph (2)).
(c) Payment Methodologies Described.--The payment
methodologies described in this subsection are the following:
(1) The prospective payment system for hospital outpatient
department services under section 1833(t) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)).
(2) The fee schedule for ambulance services under section
1834(l) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)).
(3) The prospective payment system for inpatient hospital
services under section 1886 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww).
(4) The prospective payment system for routine service
costs of skilled nursing facilities under section 1888(e) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)).
(5) The prospective payment system for home health services
under section 1895 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff).
TITLE III--PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART A
Subtitle A--Inpatient Hospital Services
SEC. 301. REVISION OF ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL PAYMENT UPDATE FOR
2001.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(b)(3)(B)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (XVI), by striking ``minus 1.1 percentage
points for hospitals (other than sole community hospitals) in
all areas, and the market basket percentage increase for sole
community hospitals,'' and inserting ``for hospitals in all
areas,'';
(2) in subclause (XVII)--
(A) by striking ``minus 1.1 percentage points'' and
inserting ``minus 0.55 percentage points; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) by redesignating subclause (XVIII) as subclause (XIX);
(4) in subclause (XIX), as so redesignated, by striking
``fiscal year 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2004''; and
(5) by inserting after subclause (XVII) the following new
subclause:
``(XVIII) for fiscal year 2003, the market basket
percentage increase minus 0.55 percentage points for
hospitals in all areas, and''.
(b) Special Rule for Payment for Fiscal Year 2001.--
Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection (a), for
purposes of making payments for fiscal year 2001 for
inpatient hospital services furnished by subsection (d)
hospitals (as defined in section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B)), the ``applicable
percentage increase'' referred to in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)(i))--
(1) for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2000,
and before April 1, 2001, shall be determined in accordance
with subclause (XVI) of such section as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) for discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2001, and
before October 1, 2001, shall be equal to--
(A) the market basket percentage increase plus 1.1
percentage points for hospitals (other than sole community
hospitals) in all areas; and
(B) the market basket percentage increase for sole
community hospitals.
(c) Consideration of Price of Blood and Blood Products in
Market Basket Index.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall, when next (after the date of the enactment of
this Act) rebasing and revising the hospital market basket
index (as defined in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(3)(B)(iii))), consider the
prices of blood and blood products purchased by hospitals and
determine whether those prices are adequately reflected in
such index.
(d) MedPAC Study and Report Regarding Certain Hospital
Costs.--
(1) Study.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission shall
conduct a study on--
(A) any increased costs incurred by subsection (d)
hospitals (as defined in paragraph (1)(B) of section 1886(d)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d))) in
providing inpatient hospital services to medicare
beneficiaries under title XVIII of such Act during the period
beginning on October 1, 1983, and ending on September 30,
1999, that were attributable to--
[[Page 24514]]
(i) complying with new blood safety measure requirements;
and
(ii) providing such services using new technologies;
(B) the extent to which the prospective payment system for
such services under such section provides adequate and timely
recognition of such increased costs;
(C) the prospects for (and to the extent practicable, the
magnitude of) cost increases that hospitals will incur in
providing such services that are attributable to complying
with new blood safety measure requirements and providing such
services using new technologies during the 10 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(D) the feasibility and advisability of establishing
mechanisms under such payment system to provide for more
timely and accurate recognition of such cost increases in the
future.
(2) Consultation.--In conducting the study under this
subsection, the Commission shall consult with representatives
of the blood community, including--
(A) hospitals;
(B) organizations involved in the collection, processing,
and delivery of blood; and
(C) organizations involved in the development of new blood
safety technologies.
(3) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1)
together with such recommendations for legislation and
administrative action as the Commission determines
appropriate.
(e) Adjustment for Inpatient Case Mix Changes.--
(1) In general.--Section 1886(d)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(3)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(vi) Insofar as the Secretary determines that the
adjustments under paragraph (4)(C)(i) for a previous fiscal
year (or estimates that such adjustments for a future fiscal
year) did (or are likely to) result in a change in aggregate
payments under this subsection during the fiscal year that
are a result of changes in the coding or classification of
discharges that do not reflect real changes in case mix, the
Secretary may adjust the average standardized amounts
computed under this paragraph for subsequent fiscal years so
as to eliminate the effect of such coding or classification
changes.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2001.
SEC. 302. ADDITIONAL MODIFICATION IN TRANSITION FOR INDIRECT
MEDICAL EDUCATION (IME) PERCENTAGE ADJUSTMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(ii) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (V) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating subclause (VI) as subclause (VII);
(3) in subclause (VII) as so redesignated, by striking
``2001'' and inserting ``2002''; and
(4) by inserting after subclause (V) the following new
subclause:
``(VI) during fiscal year 2002, `c' is equal to 1.57;
and''.
(b) Special Rule for Payment for Fiscal Year 2001.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (5)(B)(ii)(V) of section 1886(d) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(ii)(V)),
for purposes of making payments for subsection (d) hospitals
(as defined in paragraph (1)(B) of such section) with
indirect costs of medical education, the indirect teaching
adjustment factor referred to in paragraph (5)(B)(ii) of such
section shall be determined, for discharges occurring on or
after April 1, 2001, and before October 1, 2001, as if ``c''
in paragraph (5)(B)(ii)(V) of such section equalled 1.66
rather than 1.54.
(c) Conforming Amendment Relating to Determination of
Standardized Amount.--Section 1886(d)(2)(C)(i) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(2)(C)(i)) is amended by inserting ``or of section
302 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement
and Protection Act of 2000'' after ``Balanced Budget
Refinement Act of 1999''.
(d) Clerical Amendments.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(B)), as amended by subsection (a), is further
amended by moving the indentation of each of the following 2
ems to the left:
(1) Clauses (ii), (v), and (vi).
(2) Subclauses (I) (II), (III), (IV), (V), and (VII) of
clause (ii).
(3) Subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (vi) and the flush
sentence at the end of such clause.
SEC. 303. DECREASE IN REDUCTIONS FOR DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE
HOSPITAL (DSH) PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(F)(ix) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(F)(ix)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (III), by striking ``each of'' and by
inserting ``and 2 percent, respectively'' after ``3
percent''; and
(2) in subclause (IV), by striking ``4 percent'' and
inserting ``3 percent''.
(b) Special Rule for Payment for Fiscal Year 2001.--
Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection (a)(1), for
purposes of making disproportionate share payments for
subsection (d) hospitals (as defined in section 1886(d)(1)(B)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B)) for
fiscal year 2001, the additional payment amount otherwise
determined under clause (ii) of section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F))--
(1) for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2000,
and before April 1, 2001, shall be adjusted as provided by
clause (ix)(III) of such section as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) for discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2001, and
before October 1, 2001, shall, instead of being reduced by 3
percent as provided by clause (ix)(III) of such section as in
effect after the date of the enactment of this Act, be
reduced by 1 percent.
(c) Conforming Amendments Relating to Determination of
Standardized Amount.--Section 1886(d)(2)(C)(iv) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(2)(C)(iv)), is amended--
(1) by striking ``1989 or'' and inserting ``1989,''; and
(2) by inserting ``, or the enactment of section 303 of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000'' after ``Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990''.
(d) Technical Amendment.--
(1) In general.--Section 1886(d)(5)(F)(i) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(F)(i)) is amended by striking ``and before
October 1, 1997,''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) is
effective as if included in the enactment of BBA.
(e) Reference to Changes in DSH for Rural Hospitals.--For
additional changes in the DSH program for rural hospitals,
see section 211.
SEC. 304. WAGE INDEX IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) Duration of Wage Index Reclassification; Use of 3-Year
Wage Data.--Section 1886(d)(10)(D) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(10)(D)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new clauses:
``(v) Any decision of the Board to reclassify a subsection
(d) hospital for purposes of the adjustment factor described
in subparagraph (C)(i)(II) for fiscal year 2001 or any fiscal
year thereafter shall be effective for a period of 3 fiscal
years, except that the Secretary shall establish procedures
under which a subsection (d) hospital may elect to terminate
such reclassification before the end of such period.
``(vi) Such guidelines shall provide that, in making
decisions on applications for reclassification for the
purposes described in clause (v) for fiscal year 2003 and any
succeeding fiscal year, the Board shall base any comparison
of the average hourly wage for the hospital with the average
hourly wage for hospitals in an area on--
``(I) an average of the average hourly wage amount for the
hospital from the most recently published hospital wage
survey data of the Secretary (as of the date on which the
hospital applies for reclassification) and such amount from
each of the two immediately preceding surveys; and
``(II) an average of the average hourly wage amount for
hospitals in such area from the most recently published
hospital wage survey data of the Secretary (as of the date on
which the hospital applies for reclassification) and such
amount from each of the two immediately preceding surveys.''.
(b) Process To Permit Statewide Wage Index Calculation and
Application.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall establish a process (based on the voluntary process
utilized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under
section 1848 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4)
for purposes of computing and applying a statewide geographic
wage index) under which an appropriate statewide entity may
apply to have all the geographic areas in a State treated as
a single geographic area for purposes of computing and
applying the area wage index under section 1886(d)(3)(E) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(3)(E)). Such process shall be
established by October 1, 2001, for reclassifications
beginning in fiscal year 2003.
(2) Prohibition on individual hospital reclassification.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the Secretary
applies a statewide geographic wage index under paragraph (1)
with respect to a State, any application submitted by a
hospital in that State under section 1886(d)(10) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(10)) for geographic
reclassification shall not be considered.
(c) Collection of Information on Occupational Mix.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall provide for the collection of data every 3 years on
occupational mix for employees of each subsection (d)
hospital (as defined in section 1886(d)(1)(D) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(D))) in the provision of
inpatient hospital services, in order to construct an
occupational mix adjustment in the hospital area wage index
applied under section 1886(d)(3)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(3)(E)).
(2) Application.--The third sentence of section
1886(d)(3)(E) (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(3)(E)) is amended by
striking ``To the extent determined feasible by the
Secretary, such survey shall measure'' and inserting ``Not
less often than once every 3 years the Secretary (through
such survey or otherwise) shall measure''.
(3) Effective date.--By not later than September 30, 2003,
for application beginning October 1, 2004, the Secretary
shall first complete--
(A) the collection of data under paragraph (1); and
(B) the measurement under the third sentence of section
1886(d)(3)(E), as amended by paragraph (2).
SEC. 305. PAYMENT FOR INPATIENT SERVICES OF REHABILITATION
HOSPITALS.
(a) Assistance With Administrative Costs Associated With
Completion of Patient Assessment.--Section 1886(j)(3)(B) (42
U.S.C.
[[Page 24515]]
1395ww(j)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``98 percent'' and
inserting ``98 percent for fiscal year 2001 and 100 percent
for fiscal year 2002''.
(b) Election To Apply Full Prospective Payment Rate Without
Phase-In.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 1886(j) (42
U.S.C. 1395ww(j)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``other than a
facility making an election under subparagraph (F)'' before
``in a cost reporting period'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or, in the case of
a facility making an election under subparagraph (F), for any
cost reporting period described in such subparagraph,'' after
``2002,''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) Election to apply full prospective payment system.--A
rehabilitation facility may elect, not later than 30 days
before its first cost reporting period for which the payment
methodology under this subsection applies to the facility, to
have payment made to the facility under this subsection under
the provisions of subparagraph (B) (rather than subparagraph
(A)) for each cost reporting period to which such payment
methodology applies.''.
(2) Clarification.--Paragraph (3)(B) of such section is
amended by inserting ``but not taking into account any
payment adjustment resulting from an election permitted under
paragraph (1)(F)'' after ``paragraphs (4) and (6)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect as if included in the enactment of BBA.
SEC. 306. PAYMENT FOR INPATIENT SERVICES OF PSYCHIATRIC
HOSPITALS.
With respect to hospitals described in clause (i) of
section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(1)(B)) and psychiatric units described in the
matter following clause (v) of such section, in making
incentive payments to such hospitals under section
1886(b)(1)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(b)(1)(A)) for
cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2000,
and before October 1, 2001, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in clause (ii) of such section, shall substitute
``3 percent'' for ``2 percent''.
SEC. 307. PAYMENT FOR INPATIENT SERVICES OF LONG-TERM CARE
HOSPITALS.
(a) Increased Target Amounts and Caps for Long-Term Care
Hospitals Before Implementation of the Prospective Payment
System.--
(1) In general.--Section 1886(b)(3) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(b)(3)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (H)(ii)(III), by inserting ``subject to
subparagraph (J),'' after ``2002,''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(J) For cost reporting periods beginning during fiscal
year 2001, for a hospital described in subsection
(d)(1)(B)(iv)--
``(i) the limiting or cap amount otherwise determined under
subparagraph (H) shall be increased by 2 percent; and
``(ii) the target amount otherwise determined under
subparagraph (A) shall be increased by 25 percent (subject to
the limiting or cap amount determined under subparagraph (H),
as increased by clause (i)).''.
(2) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) and
by section 122 of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-331) shall not be
taken into account in the development and implementation of
the prospective payment system under section 123 of BBRA (113
Stat. 1501A-331).
(b) Implementation of Prospective Payment System for Long-
Term Care Hospitals.--
(1) Modification of requirement.--In developing the
prospective payment system for payment for inpatient hospital
services provided in long-term care hospitals described in
section 1886(d)(1)(B)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B)(iv)) under the medicare program under
title XVIII of such Act required under section 123 of BBRA,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall examine the
feasibility and the impact of basing payment under such a
system on the use of existing (or refined) hospital
diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) that have been modified to
account for different resource use of long-term care hospital
patients as well as the use of the most recently available
hospital discharge data. The Secretary shall examine and may
provide for appropriate adjustments to the long-term hospital
payment system, including adjustments to DRG weights, area
wage adjustments, geographic reclassification, outliers,
updates, and a disproportionate share adjustment consistent
with section 1886(d)(5)(F) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)).
(2) Default implementation of system based on existing drg
methodology.--If the Secretary is unable to implement the
prospective payment system under section 123 of the BBRA by
October 1, 2002, the Secretary shall implement a prospective
payment system for such hospitals that bases payment under
such a system using existing hospital diagnosis-related
groups (DRGs), modified where feasible to account for
resource use of long-term care hospital patients using the
most recently available hospital discharge data for such
services furnished on or after that date.
Subtitle B--Adjustments to PPS Payments for Skilled Nursing Facilities
SEC. 311. ELIMINATION OF REDUCTION IN SKILLED NURSING
FACILITY (SNF) MARKET BASKET UPDATE IN 2001.
(a) In General.--Section 1888(e)(4)(E)(ii) (42 U.S.C.
1395yy(e)(4)(E)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subclauses (II) and (III) as
subclauses (III) and (IV), respectively;
(2) in subclause (III), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking ``each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002'' and
inserting ``each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003''; and
(B) by striking ``minus 1 percentage point'' and inserting
``minus 0.5 percentage points''; and
(3) by inserting after subclause (I) the following new
subclause:
``(II) for fiscal year 2001, the rate computed for the
previous fiscal year increased by the skilled nursing
facility market basket percentage change for the fiscal
year;''.
(b) Special Rule for Payment for Fiscal Year 2001.--
Notwithstanding the amendments made by subsection (a), for
purposes of making payments for covered skilled nursing
facility services under section 1888(e) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)) for fiscal year 2001, the
Federal per diem rate referred to in paragraph (4)(E)(ii) of
such section--
(1) for the period beginning on October 1, 2000, and ending
on March 31, 2001, shall be the rate determined in accordance
with the law as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(2) for the period beginning on April 1, 2001, and ending
on September 30, 2001, shall be the rate that would have been
determined under such section if ``plus 1 percentage point''
had been substituted for ``minus 1 percentage point'' under
subclause (II) of such paragraph (as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act).
(c) Relation to Temporary Increase in BBRA.--The increases
provided under section 101 of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-325)
shall be in addition to any increase resulting from the
amendments made by subsection (a).
(d) GAO Report on Adequacy of SNF Payment Rates.--Not later
than July 1, 2002, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to Congress a report on the adequacy of
medicare payment rates to skilled nursing facilities and the
extent to which medicare contributes to the financial
viability of such facilities. Such report shall take into
account the role of private payors, medicaid, and case mix on
the financial performance of these facilities, and shall
include an analysis (by specific RUG classification) of the
number and characteristics of such facilities.
(e) HCFA Study of Classification Systems for SNF
Residents.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a study of the different systems for
categorizing patients in medicare skilled nursing facilities
in a manner that accounts for the relative resource
utilization of different patient types.
(2) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2005, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the study conducted
under subsection (a). Such report shall include such
recommendations regarding changes in law as may be
appropriate.
SEC. 312. INCREASE IN NURSING COMPONENT OF PPS FEDERAL RATE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall increase by 16.66 percent the nursing component of the
case-mix adjusted Federal prospective payment rate specified
in Tables 3 and 4 of the final rule published in the Federal
Register by the Health Care Financing Administration on July
31, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 46770), effective for services
furnished on or after April 1, 2001, and before October 1,
2002.
(b) GAO Audit of Nursing Staff Ratios.--
(1) Audit.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct an audit of nursing staffing ratios in a
representative sample of medicare skilled nursing facilities.
Such sample shall cover selected States and shall include
broad representation with respect to size, ownership,
location, and medicare volume. Such audit shall include an
examination of payroll records and medicaid cost reports of
individual facilities.
(2) Report.--Not later than August 1, 2002, the Comptroller
General shall submit to Congress a report on the audits
conducted under paragraph (1). Such report shall include an
assessment of the impact of the increased payments under this
subtitle on increased nursing staff ratios and shall make
recommendations as to whether increased payments under
subsection (a) should be continued.
SEC. 313. APPLICATION OF SNF CONSOLIDATED BILLING REQUIREMENT
LIMITED TO PART A COVERED STAYS.
(a) In General.--Section 1862(a)(18) (42 U.S.C.
1395y(a)(18)) is amended by striking ``or of a part of a
facility that includes a skilled nursing facility (as
determined under regulations),'' and inserting ``during a
period in which the resident is provided covered post-
hospital extended care services (or, for services described
in section 1861(s)(2)(D), which are furnished to such an
individual without regard to such period),''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1842(b)(6)(E) (42
U.S.C. 1395u(b)(6)(E)) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``by, or under arrangements made by, a
skilled nursing facility'' after ``furnished'';
(B) by striking ``or of a part of a facility that includes
a skilled nursing facility (as determined under
regulations)''; and
(C) by striking ``(without regard to whether or not the
item or service was furnished by the facility, by others
under arrangement with them made by the facility, under any
other contracting or consulting arrangement, or otherwise)''.
[[Page 24516]]
(2) Section 1842(t) (42 U.S.C. 1395u(t)) is amended by
striking ``by a physician'' and ``or of a part of a facility
that includes a skilled nursing facility (as determined under
regulations),''.
(3) Section 1866(a)(1)(H)(ii)(I) (42 U.S.C.
1395cc(a)(1)(H)(ii)(I)) is amended by inserting after ``who
is a resident of the skilled nursing facility'' the
following: ``during a period in which the resident is
provided covered post-hospital extended care services (or,
for services described in section 1861(s)(2)(D), that are
furnished to such an individual without regard to such
period)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) apply to services furnished on or after January 1,
2001.
(d) Oversight.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services,
through the Office of the Inspector General in the Department
of Health and Human Services or otherwise, shall monitor
payments made under part B of the title XVIII of the Social
Security Act for items and services furnished to residents of
skilled nursing facilities during a time in which the
residents are not being provided medicare covered post-
hospital extended care services to ensure that there is not
duplicate billing for services or excessive services
provided.
SEC. 314. ADJUSTMENT OF REHABILITATION RUGS TO CORRECT
ANOMALY IN PAYMENT RATES.
(a) Adjustment for Rehabilitation RUGS.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of computing payments for
covered skilled nursing facility services under paragraph (1)
of section 1888(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395yy(e)) for such services furnished on or after April 1,
2001, and before the date described in section 101(c)(2) of
BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-324), the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall increase by 6.7 percent the adjusted Federal
per diem rate otherwise determined under paragraph (4) of
such section (but for this section) for covered skilled
nursing facility services for RUG-III rehabilitation groups
described in paragraph (2) furnished to an individual during
the period in which such individual is classified in such a
RUG-III category.
(2) Rehabilitation groups described.--The RUG-III
rehabilitation groups for which the adjustment described in
paragraph (1) applies are RUC, RUB, RUA, RVC, RVB, RVA, RHC,
RHB, RHA, RMC, RMB, RMA, RLB, and RLA, as specified in Tables
3 and 4 of the final rule published in the Federal Register
by the Health Care Financing Administration on July 31, 2000
(65 Fed. Reg. 46770).
(b) Correction With Respect to Rehabilitation RUGs.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(b) of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-
324) is amended by striking ``CA1, RHC, RMC, and RMB'' and
inserting ``and CA1''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies to services furnished on or after April 1, 2001.
(c) Review by Office of Inspector General.--The Inspector
General of the Department of Health and Human Services shall
review the medicare payment structure for services classified
within rehabilitation resource utilization groups (RUGs) (as
in effect after the date of the enactment of the BBRA) to
assess whether payment incentives exist for the delivery of
inadequate care. Not later than October 1, 2001, the
Inspector General shall submit to Congress a report on such
review.
SEC. 315. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCESS FOR GEOGRAPHIC
RECLASSIFICATION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
may establish a procedure for the geographic reclassification
of a skilled nursing facility for purposes of payment for
covered skilled nursing facility services under the
prospective payment system established under section 1888(e)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)). Such
procedure may be based upon the method for geographic
reclassifications for inpatient hospitals established under
section 1886(d)(10) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(10)).
(b) Requirement for Skilled Nursing Facility Wage Data.--In
no case may the Secretary implement the procedure under
subsection (a) before such time as the Secretary has
collected data necessary to establish an area wage index for
skilled nursing facilities based on wage data from such
facilities.
Subtitle C--Hospice Care
SEC. 321. FULL MARKET BASKET INCREASE FOR 2001.
(a) In General.--Section 1814(i)(1)(C)(ii) (42 U.S.C.
1395f(i)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subclause (VII) as subclause (IX);
(2) in subclause (VI)--
(A) by striking ``through 2002'' and inserting ``through
2000''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(3) by inserting after subclause (VI) the following new
subclauses:
``(VII) for fiscal year 2001, the market basket percentage
increase for the fiscal year;
``(VIII) for fiscal year 2002, the market basket percentage
increase for the fiscal year minus 0.25 percentage points;
and''.
(b) Transition During Fiscal Year 2001.--Notwithstanding
the amendments made by subsection (a), for purposes of making
payments for hospice care under section 1814(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(i)) for fiscal year 2001, the
payment rates referred to in paragraph (1)(C) of such
section--
(1) for the period beginning on October 1, 2000, and ending
on March 31, 2001, shall be the rate determined in accordance
with the law as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(2) for the period beginning on April 1, 2001, and ending
on September 30, 2001, shall be the rate that would have been
determined under paragraph (1) if ``plus 1.0 percentage
points'' were substituted for ``minus 1.0 percentage points''
under paragraph (1)(C)(ii)(VI) of such section for fiscal
year 2001.
(c) Conforming Amendments to BBRA.--
(1) In general.--Section 131 of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-333)
is repealed.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of BBRA.
(d) Technical Amendment.--Section 1814(a)(7)(A)(ii) (42
U.S.C. 1395f(a)(7)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking the period
at the end and inserting a semicolon.
SEC. 322. CLARIFICATION OF PHYSICIAN CERTIFICATION.
(a) Certification Based on Normal Course of Illness.--
(1) In general.--Section 1814(a) (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``The certification regarding terminal illness of an
individual under paragraph (7) shall be based on the
physician's or medical director's clinical judgment regarding
the normal course of the individual's illness.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies to certifications made on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Study and Report on Physician Certification Requirement
for Hospice Benefits.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a study to examine the appropriateness of the
certification regarding terminal illness of an individual
under section 1814(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395f(a)(7)) that is required in order for such
individual to receive hospice benefits under the medicare
program under title XVIII of such Act. In conducting such
study, the Secretary shall take into account the effect of
the amendment made by subsection (a).
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit to Congress a report on the study
conducted under paragraph (1), together with any
recommendations for legislation that the Secretary deems
appropriate.
SEC. 323. MEDPAC REPORT ON ACCESS TO, AND USE OF, HOSPICE
BENEFIT.
(a) In General.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
shall conduct a study to examine the factors affecting the
use of hospice benefits under the medicare program under
title XVIII of the Social Security Act, including a delay in
the time (relative to death) of entry into a hospice program,
and differences in such use between urban and rural hospice
programs and based upon the presenting condition of the
patient.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a), together with any recommendations for legislation that
the Commission deems appropriate.
Subtitle D--Other Provisions
SEC. 331. RELIEF FROM MEDICARE PART A LATE ENROLLMENT PENALTY
FOR GROUP BUY-IN FOR STATE AND LOCAL RETIREES.
(a) In General.--Section 1818 (42 U.S.C. 1395i-2) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(6), by inserting before the semicolon
at the end the following: ``and shall be subject to reduction
in accordance with subsection (d)(6)''; and
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following
new paragraph:
``(6)(A) In the case where a State, a political subdivision
of a State, or an agency or instrumentality of a State or
political subdivision thereof determines to pay, for the life
of each individual, the monthly premiums due under paragraph
(1) on behalf of each of the individuals in a qualified State
or local government retiree group who meets the conditions of
subsection (a), the amount of any increase otherwise
applicable under section 1839(b) (as applied and modified by
subsection (c)(6) of this section) with respect to the
monthly premium for benefits under this part for an
individual who is a member of such group shall be reduced by
the total amount of taxes paid under section 3101(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by such individual and under
section 3111(b) by the employers of such individual on behalf
of such individual with respect to employment (as defined in
section 3121(b) of such Code).
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified
State or local government retiree group' means all of the
individuals who retire prior to a specified date that is
before January 1, 2002, from employment in 1 or more
occupations or other broad classes of employees of--
``(i) the State;
``(ii) a political subdivision of the State; or
``(iii) an agency or instrumentality of the State or
political subdivision of the State.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply to premiums for months beginning with July 1, 2001.
SEC. 332. POSTING OF INFORMATION ON NURSING FACILITY
STAFFING.
(a) Medicare.--Section 1819(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Information on nurse staffing.--
[[Page 24517]]
``(A) In general.--A skilled nursing facility shall post
daily for each shift the current number of licensed and
unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident
care in the facility. The information shall be displayed in a
uniform manner (as specified by the Secretary) and in a
clearly visible place.
``(B) Publication of data.--A skilled nursing facility
shall, upon request, make available to the public the nursing
staff data described in subparagraph (A).''.
(b) Medicaid.--Section 1919(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395r(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Information on nurse staffing.--
``(A) In general.--A nursing facility shall post daily for
each shift the current number of licensed and unlicensed
nursing staff directly responsible for resident care in the
facility. The information shall be displayed in a uniform
manner (as specified by the Secretary) and in a clearly
visible place.
``(B) Publication of data.--A nursing facility shall, upon
request, make available to the public the nursing staff data
described in subparagraph (A).''.
TITLE IV--PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART B
Subtitle A--Hospital Outpatient Services
SEC. 401. REVISION OF HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT PPS PAYMENT UPDATE.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iii) (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)(3)(C)(iii)) is amended by striking ``in each of
2000, 2001, and 2002'' and inserting ``in each of 2000 and
2002''.
(b) Adjustment for Case Mix Changes.--
(1) In general.--Section 1833(t)(3)(C) (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)(3)(C)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
(B) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new
clause:
``(iii) Adjustment for service mix changes.--Insofar as the
Secretary determines that the adjustments for service mix
under paragraph (2) for a previous year (or estimates that
such adjustments for a future year) did (or are likely to)
result in a change in aggregate payments under this
subsection during the year that are a result of changes in
the coding or classification of covered OPD services that do
not reflect real changes in service mix, the Secretary may
adjust the conversion factor computed under this subparagraph
for subsequent years so as to eliminate the effect of such
coding or classification changes.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of BBA.
SEC. 402. CLARIFYING PROCESS AND STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING
ELIGIBILITY OF DEVICES FOR PASS-THROUGH
PAYMENTS UNDER HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT PPS.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(6) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(6))
is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as
subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following new subparagraphs:
``(B) Use of categories in determining eligibility of a
device for pass-through payments.--The following provisions
apply for purposes of determining whether a medical device
qualifies for additional payments under clause (ii) or (iv)
of subparagraph (A):
``(i) Establishment of initial categories.--The Secretary
shall initially establish under this clause categories of
medical devices based on type of device by April 1, 2001.
Such categories shall be established in a manner such that
each medical device that meets the requirements of clause
(ii) or (iv) of subparagraph (A) as of as of January 1, 2001,
is included in such a category and no such device is included
in more than one category. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, whether a medical device meets such requirements as
of such date shall be determined on the basis of the program
memoranda issued before such date or if the Secretary
determines the medical device would have been included in the
program memoranda but for the requirement of subparagraph
(A)(iv)(I). The categories may be established under this
clause by program memorandum or otherwise, after consultation
with groups representing hospitals, manufacturers of medical
devices, and other affected parties.
``(ii) Establishing criteria for additional categories.--
``(I) In general.--The Secretary shall establish criteria
that will be used for creation of additional categories
(other than those established under clause (i)) through
rulemaking (which may include use of an interim final rule
with comment period).
``(II) Standard.--Such categories shall be established
under this clause in a manner such that no medical device is
described by more than one category. Such criteria shall
include a test of whether the average cost of devices that
would be included in a category and are in use at the time
the category is established is not insignificant, as
described in subparagraph (A)(iv)(II).
``(III) Deadline.--Criteria shall first be established
under this clause by July 1, 2001. The Secretary may
establish in compelling circumstances categories under this
clause before the date such criteria are established.
``(IV) Adding categories.--The Secretary shall promptly
establish a new category of medical devices under this clause
for any medical device that meets the requirements of
subparagraph (A)(iv) and for which none of the categories in
effect (or that were previously in effect) is appropriate.
``(iii) Period for which category is in effect.--A category
of medical devices established under clause (i) or clause
(ii) shall be in effect for a period of at least 2 years, but
not more than 3 years, that begins--
``(I) in the case of a category established under clause
(i), on the first date on which payment was made under this
paragraph for any device described by such category
(including payments made during the period before April 1,
2001); and
``(II) in the case of any other category, on the first date
on which payment is made under this paragraph for any medical
device that is described by such category.
``(iv) Requirements treated as met.--A medical device shall
be treated as meeting the requirements of subparagraph
(A)(iv) if--
``(I) the device is described by a category established and
in effect under clause (i); or
``(II) the device is described by a category established
and in effect under clause (ii) and an application under
section 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act has
been approved with respect to the device, or the device has
been cleared for market under section 510(k) of such Act, or
the device is exempt from the requirements of section 510(k)
of such Act pursuant to subsection (l) or (m) of section 510
of such Act or section 520(g) of such Act.
Nothing in this clause shall be construed as requiring an
application or prior approval (other than that described in
subclause (II)) in order for a covered device to qualify for
payment under this paragraph.
``(C) Limited period of payment.--
``(i) Drugs and biologicals.--The payment under this
paragraph with respect to a drug or biological shall only
apply during a period of at least 2 years, but not more than
3 years, that begins--
``(I) on the first date this subsection is implemented in
the case of a drug or biological described in clause (i),
(ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A) and in the case of a drug
or biological described in subparagraph (A)(iv) and for which
payment under this part is made as an outpatient hospital
service before such first date; or
``(II) in the case of a drug or biological described in
subparagraph (A)(iv) not described in subclause (I), on the
first date on which payment is made under this part for the
drug or biological as an outpatient hospital service.
``(ii) Medical devices.--Payment shall be made under this
paragraph with respect to a medical device only if such
device--
``(I) is described by a category of medical devices
established and in effect under subparagraph (B); and
``(II) is provided as part of a service (or group of
services) paid for under this subsection and provided during
the period for which such category is in effect under such
subparagraph.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1833(t) (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)) is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (6)(A)(iv)(II), by striking ``the cost of
the device, drug, or biological'' and inserting ``the cost of
the drug or biological or the average cost of the category of
devices'';
(2) in paragraph (6)(D) (as redesignated by subsection
(a)(1)), by striking ``subparagraph (D)(iii)'' in the matter
preceding clause (i) and inserting ``subparagraph (E)(iii)'';
and
(3) in paragraph (12)(E), by striking ``additional payments
(consistent with paragraph (6)(B))'' and inserting
``additional payments, the determination and deletion of
initial and new categories (consistent with subparagraphs (B)
and (C) of paragraph (6))''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Transition.--
(1) In general.--In the case of a medical device provided
as part of a service (or group of services) furnished during
the period before initial categories are implemented under
subparagraph (B)(i) of section 1833(t)(6) of the Social
Security Act (as amended by subsection (a)), payment shall be
made for such device under such section in accordance with
the provisions in effect before the date of the enactment of
this Act, except that, beginning on the date that is 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, payment shall
also be made for such a device that is not included in a
program memorandum described in such subparagraph if the
Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that the
device is likely to be described by such an initial category
or would have been included in such program memoranda but for
the requirement of subparagraph (A)(iv)(I) of that section.
(2) Application of current process.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary shall continue to
accept applications with respect to medical devices under the
process established pursuant to paragraph (6) of section
1833(t) of the Social Security Act (as in effect on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act) through
December 1, 2000, and any device--
(A) with respect to which an application was submitted
(pursuant to such process) on or before such date; and
(B) that meets the requirements of clause (ii) or (iv) of
subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (as determined pursuant to
such process),
shall be treated as a device with respect to which an initial
category is required to be established under subparagraph
(B)(i) of such paragraph (as amended by subsection (a)(2)).
[[Page 24518]]
SEC. 403. APPLICATION OF OPD PPS TRANSITIONAL CORRIDOR
PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN HOSPITALS THAT DID NOT
SUBMIT A 1996 COST REPORT.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(7)(F)(ii)(I) (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)(7)(F)(ii)(I)) is amended by inserting ``(or in the
case of a hospital that did not submit a cost report for such
period, during the first subsequent cost reporting period
ending before 2001 for which the hospital submitted a cost
report)'' after ``1996''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of BBRA.
SEC. 404. APPLICATION OF RULES FOR DETERMINING PROVIDER-BASED
STATUS FOR CERTAIN ENTITIES.
(a) Grandfather.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for purposes of making determinations of provider-based
status under title XVIII of the Social Security Act on or
after October 1, 2000, any facility or organization that is
treated as provider-based in relation to a hospital or
critical access hospital under such title as of October 1,
2000--
(1) shall continue to be treated as provider-based in
relation to such hospital or critical access hospital under
such title during the 2-year period beginning on October 1,
2000; and
(2) the requirements, limitations, and exclusions specified
in paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (h) of section 413.65 of
title 42, Code of Federal Regulations shall not apply to such
facility or organization in relation to such hospital or
critical access hospital until after the end of such 2-year
period.
(b) Temporary Criteria.--For purposes of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act--
(1) a facility or organization for which a determination of
provider-based status in relation to a hospital or critical
access hospital is requested on or after October 1, 2000, and
before October 1, 2002, may not be treated as not having
provider-based status in relation to such a hospital for any
period before a determination is made with respect to such
status pursuant to such request; and
(2) in making a determination with respect to such status
for any facility or organization in relationship to such a
hospital on or after October 1, 2000, the following rules
apply:
(A) The facility or organization shall be treated as
satisfying any requirements and standards for geographic
location in relation to such a hospital if the facility or
organization--
(i) satisfies the requirements of section 413.65(d)(7) of
title 42, Code of Federal Regulations; or
(ii) is located not more than 35 miles from the main campus
of the hospital or critical access hospital.
(B) The facility or organization shall be treated as
satisfying any of the requirements and standards for
geographic location in relation to such a hospital if the
facility or organization is owned and operated by a hospital
or critical access hospital that--
(i) is owned or operated by a unit of State or local
government, is a public or private nonprofit corporation that
is formally granted governmental powers by a unit of State or
local government, or is a private hospital that has a
contract with a State or local government that includes the
operation of clinics located off the main campus of the
hospital to assure access in a well-defined service area to
health care services for low-income individuals who are not
entitled to benefits under title XVIII (or medical assistance
under a State plan under title XIX) of such Act; and
(ii) has a disproportionate share adjustment percentage (as
determined under section 1886(d)(5)(F) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(F))) greater than 11.75 percent or is described
in clause (i)(II) of such section.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``hospital'' and ``critical access hospital'' have the
meanings given such terms in subsections (e) and (mm)(1),
respectively, of section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x).
SEC. 405. TREATMENT OF CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS UNDER PROSPECTIVE
PAYMENT SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)) is
amended--
(1) in the heading of paragraph (7)(D)(ii), by inserting
``and children's hospitals'' after ``cancer hospitals''; and
(2) in paragraphs (7)(D)(ii) and (11), by striking
``section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v)'' and inserting ``clause (iii) or
(v) of section 1886(d)(1)(B)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply as if included in the enactment of section 202 of BBRA
(113 Stat. 1501A-342).
SEC. 406. INCLUSION OF TEMPERATURE MONITORED CRYOABLATION IN
TRANSITIONAL PASS-THROUGH FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL
DEVICES, DRUGS, AND BIOLOGICALS UNDER OPD PPS.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(t)(6)(A)(ii) (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)(6)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``or temperature
monitored cryoablation'' after ``device of brachytherapy''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies to devices furnished on or after April 1, 2001.
Subtitle B--Provisions Relating to Physicians' Services
SEC. 411. GAO STUDIES RELATING TO PHYSICIANS' SERVICES.
(a) Study of Specialist Physicians' Services Furnished in
Physicians' Offices and Hospital Outpatient Department
Services.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study to examine the appropriateness of
furnishing in physicians' offices specialist physicians'
services (such as gastrointestinal endoscopic physicians'
services) which are ordinarily furnished in hospital
outpatient departments. In conducting this study, the
Comptroller General shall--
(A) review available scientific and clinical evidence about
the safety of performing procedures in physicians' offices
and hospital outpatient departments;
(B) assess whether resource-based practice expense relative
values established by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services under the medicare physician fee schedule under
section 1848 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4)
for such specialist physicians' services furnished in
physicians' offices and hospital outpatient departments
create an incentive to furnish such services in physicians'
offices instead of hospital outpatient departments; and
(C) assess the implications for access to care for medicare
beneficiaries if the medicare program were not to cover such
services in physicians' offices.
(2) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2001, the Comptroller
General shall submit to Congress a report on such study and
include such recommendations as the Comptroller General
determines to be appropriate.
(b) Study of the Resource-Based Practice Expense System.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the refinements to the practice
expense relative value units during the transition to a
resource-based practice expense system for physician payments
under the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act. Such study shall examine how the Secretary of
Health and Human Services has accepted and used the practice
expense data submitted under section 212 of BBRA (113 Stat.
1501A-350).
(2) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2001, the Comptroller
General shall submit to Congress a report on the study
conducted under paragraph (1) together with recommendations
regarding--
(A) improvements in the process for acceptance and use of
practice expense data under section 212 of BBRA;
(B) any change or adjustment that is appropriate to ensure
full access to a spectrum of care for beneficiaries under the
medicare program; and
(C) the appropriateness of payments to physicians.
SEC. 412. PHYSICIAN GROUP PRACTICE DEMONSTRATION.
(a) In General.--Title XVIII is amended by inserting after
section 1866 the following new sections:
``demonstration of application of physician volume increases to group
practices
``Sec. 1866A. (a) Demonstration Program Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct
demonstration projects to test and, if proven effective,
expand the use of incentives to health care groups
participating in the program under this title that--
``(A) encourage coordination of the care furnished to
individuals under the programs under parts A and B by
institutional and other providers, practitioners, and
suppliers of health care items and services;
``(B) encourage investment in administrative structures and
processes to ensure efficient service delivery; and
``(C) reward physicians for improving health outcomes.
Such projects shall focus on the efficiencies of furnishing
health care in a group-practice setting as compared to the
efficiencies of furnishing health care in other health care
delivery systems.
``(2) Administration by contract.--Except as otherwise
specifically provided, the Secretary may administer the
program under this section in accordance with section 1866B.
``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, terms
have the following meanings:
``(A) Physician.--Except as the Secretary may otherwise
provide, the term `physician' means any individual who
furnishes services which may be paid for as physicians'
services under this title.
``(B) Health care group.--The term `health care group'
means a group of physicians (as defined in subparagraph (A))
organized at least in part for the purpose of providing
physicians' services under this title. As the Secretary finds
appropriate, a health care group may include a hospital and
any other individual or entity furnishing items or services
for which payment may be made under this title that is
affiliated with the health care group under an arrangement
structured so that such individual or entity participates in
a demonstration under this section and will share in any
bonus earned under subsection (d).
``(b) Eligibility Criteria.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to establish
criteria for health care groups eligible to participate in a
demonstration under this section, including criteria relating
to numbers of health care professionals in, and of patients
served by, the group, scope of services provided, and quality
of care.
``(2) Payment method.--A health care group participating in
the demonstration under this section shall agree with respect
to services furnished to beneficiaries within the scope of
the demonstration (as determined under subsection (c))--
``(A) to be paid on a fee-for-service basis; and
``(B) that payment with respect to all such services
furnished by members of the health care
[[Page 24519]]
group to such beneficiaries shall (where determined
appropriate by the Secretary) be made to a single entity.
``(3) Data reporting.--A health care group participating in
a demonstration under this section shall report to the
Secretary such data, at such times and in such format as the
Secretary requires, for purposes of monitoring and evaluation
of the demonstration under this section.
``(c) Patients Within Scope of Demonstration.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall specify, in
accordance with this subsection, the criteria for identifying
those patients of a health care group who shall be considered
within the scope of the demonstration under this section for
purposes of application of subsection (d) and for assessment
of the effectiveness of the group in achieving the objectives
of this section.
``(2) Other criteria.--The Secretary may establish
additional criteria for inclusion of beneficiaries within a
demonstration under this section, which may include frequency
of contact with physicians in the group or other factors or
criteria that the Secretary finds to be appropriate.
``(3) Notice requirements.--In the case of each beneficiary
determined to be within the scope of a demonstration under
this section with respect to a specific health care group,
the Secretary shall ensure that such beneficiary is notified
of the incentives, and of any waivers of coverage or payment
rules, applicable to such group under such demonstration.
``(d) Incentives.--
``(1) Performance target.--The Secretary shall establish
for each health care group participating in a demonstration
under this section--
``(A) a base expenditure amount, equal to the average total
payments under parts A and B for patients served by the
health care group on a fee-for-service basis in a base period
determined by the Secretary; and
``(B) an annual per capita expenditure target for patients
determined to be within the scope of the demonstration,
reflecting the base expenditure amount adjusted for risk and
expected growth rates.
``(2) Incentive bonus.--The Secretary shall pay to each
participating health care group (subject to paragraph (4)) a
bonus for each year under the demonstration equal to a
portion of the medicare savings realized for such year
relative to the performance target.
``(3) Additional bonus for process and outcome
improvements.--At such time as the Secretary has established
appropriate criteria based on evidence the Secretary
determines to be sufficient, the Secretary shall also pay to
a participating health care group (subject to paragraph (4))
an additional bonus for a year, equal to such portion as the
Secretary may designate of the saving to the program under
this title resulting from process improvements made by and
patient outcome improvements attributable to activities of
the group.
``(4) Limitation.--The Secretary shall limit bonus payments
under this section as necessary to ensure that the aggregate
expenditures under this title (inclusive of bonus payments)
with respect to patients within the scope of the
demonstration do not exceed the amount which the Secretary
estimates would be expended if the demonstration projects
under this section were not implemented.
``provisions for administration of demonstration program
``Sec. 1866B. (a) General Administrative Authority.--
``(1) Beneficiary eligibility.--Except as otherwise
provided by the Secretary, an individual shall only be
eligible to receive benefits under the program under section
1866A (in this section referred to as the `demonstration
program') if such individual--
``(A) is enrolled in under the program under part B and
entitled to benefits under part A; and
``(B) is not enrolled in a Medicare+Choice plan under part
C, an eligible organization under a contract under section
1876 (or a similar organization operating under a
demonstration project authority), an organization with an
agreement under section 1833(a)(1)(A), or a PACE program
under section 1894.
``(2) Secretary's discretion as to scope of program.--The
Secretary may limit the implementation of the demonstration
program to--
``(A) a geographic area (or areas) that the Secretary
designates for purposes of the program, based upon such
criteria as the Secretary finds appropriate;
``(B) a subgroup (or subgroups) of beneficiaries or
individuals and entities furnishing items or services
(otherwise eligible to participate in the program), selected
on the basis of the number of such participants that the
Secretary finds consistent with the effective and efficient
implementation of the program;
``(C) an element (or elements) of the program that the
Secretary determines to be suitable for implementation; or
``(D) any combination of any of the limits described in
subparagraphs (A) through (C).
``(3) Voluntary receipt of items and services.--Items and
services shall be furnished to an individual under the
demonstration program only at the individual's election.
``(4) Agreements.--The Secretary is authorized to enter
into agreements with individuals and entities to furnish
health care items and services to beneficiaries under the
demonstration program.
``(5) Program standards and criteria.--The Secretary shall
establish performance standards for the demonstration program
including, as applicable, standards for quality of health
care items and services, cost-effectiveness, beneficiary
satisfaction, and such other factors as the Secretary finds
appropriate. The eligibility of individuals or entities for
the initial award, continuation, and renewal of agreements to
provide health care items and services under the program
shall be conditioned, at a minimum, on performance that meets
or exceeds such standards.
``(6) Administrative review of decisions affecting
individuals and entities furnishing services.--An individual
or entity furnishing services under the demonstration program
shall be entitled to a review by the program administrator
(or, if the Secretary has not contracted with a program
administrator, by the Secretary) of a decision not to enter
into, or to terminate, or not to renew, an agreement with the
entity to provide health care items or services under the
program.
``(7) Secretary's review of marketing materials.--An
agreement with an individual or entity furnishing services
under the demonstration program shall require the individual
or entity to guarantee that it will not distribute materials
that market items or services under the program without the
Secretary's prior review and approval.
``(8) Payment in full.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
an individual or entity receiving payment from the Secretary
under a contract or agreement under the demonstration program
shall agree to accept such payment as payment in full, and
such payment shall be in lieu of any payments to which the
individual or entity would otherwise be entitled under this
title.
``(B) Collection of deductibles and coinsurance.--Such
individual or entity may collect any applicable deductible or
coinsurance amount from a beneficiary.
``(b) Contracts for Program Administration.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may administer the
demonstration program through a contract with a program
administrator in accordance with the provisions of this
subsection.
``(2) Scope of program administrator contracts.--The
Secretary may enter into such contracts for a limited
geographic area, or on a regional or national basis.
``(3) Eligible contractors.--The Secretary may contract for
the administration of the program with--
``(A) an entity that, under a contract under section 1816
or 1842, determines the amount of and makes payments for
health care items and services furnished under this title; or
``(B) any other entity with substantial experience in
managing the type of program concerned.
``(4) Contract award, duration, and renewal.--
``(A) In general.--A contract under this subsection shall
be for an initial term of up to three years, renewable for
additional terms of up to three years.
``(B) Noncompetitive award and renewal for entities
administering part a or part b payments.--The Secretary may
enter or renew a contract under this subsection with an
entity described in paragraph (3)(A) without regard to the
requirements of section 5 of title 41, United States Code.
``(5) Applicability of federal acquisition regulation.--The
Federal Acquisition Regulation shall apply to program
administration contracts under this subsection.
``(6) Performance standards.--The Secretary shall establish
performance standards for the program administrator
including, as applicable, standards for the quality and cost-
effectiveness of the program administered, and such other
factors as the Secretary finds appropriate. The eligibility
of entities for the initial award, continuation, and renewal
of program administration contracts shall be conditioned, at
a minimum, on performance that meets or exceeds such
standards.
``(7) Functions of program administrator.--A program
administrator shall perform any or all of the following
functions, as specified by the Secretary:
``(A) Agreements with entities furnishing health care items
and services.--Determine the qualifications of entities
seeking to enter or renew agreements to provide services
under the demonstration program, and as appropriate enter or
renew (or refuse to enter or renew) such agreements on behalf
of the Secretary.
``(B) Establishment of payment rates.--Negotiate or
otherwise establish, subject to the Secretary's approval,
payment rates for covered health care items and services.
``(C) Payment of claims or fees.--Administer payments for
health care items or services furnished under the program.
``(D) Payment of bonuses.--Using such guidelines as the
Secretary shall establish, and subject to the approval of the
Secretary, make bonus payments as described in subsection
(c)(2)(A)(ii) to entities furnishing items or services for
which payment may be made under the program.
``(E) Oversight.--Monitor the compliance of individuals and
entities with agreements under the program with the
conditions of participation.
``(F) Administrative review.--Conduct reviews of adverse
determinations specified in subsection (a)(6).
``(G) Review of marketing materials.--Conduct a review of
marketing materials proposed by an entity furnishing services
under the program.
[[Page 24520]]
``(H) Additional functions.--Perform such other functions
as the Secretary may specify.
``(8) Limitation of liability.--The provisions of section
1157(b) shall apply with respect to activities of contractors
and their officers, employees, and agents under a contract
under this subsection.
``(9) Information sharing.--Notwithstanding section 1106
and section 552a of title 5, United States Code, the
Secretary is authorized to disclose to an entity with a
program administration contract under this subsection such
information (including medical information) on individuals
receiving health care items and services under the program as
the entity may require to carry out its responsibilities
under the contract.
``(c) Rules Applicable to Both Program Agreements and
Program Administration Contracts.--
``(1) Records, reports, and audits.--The Secretary is
authorized to require entities with agreements to provide
health care items or services under the demonstration
program, and entities with program administration contracts
under subsection (b), to maintain adequate records, to afford
the Secretary access to such records (including for audit
purposes), and to furnish such reports and other materials
(including audited financial statements and performance data)
as the Secretary may require for purposes of implementation,
oversight, and evaluation of the program and of individuals'
and entities' effectiveness in performance of such agreements
or contracts.
``(2) Bonuses.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
but subject to subparagraph (B)(ii), the Secretary may make
bonus payments under the demonstration program from the
Federal Health Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund in amounts that do
not exceed the amounts authorized under the program in
accordance with the following:
``(A) Payments to program administrators.--The Secretary
may make bonus payments under the program to program
administrators.
``(B) Payments to entities furnishing services.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the Secretary
may make bonus payments to individuals or entities furnishing
items or services for which payment may be made under the
demonstration program, or may authorize the program
administrator to make such bonus payments in accordance with
such guidelines as the Secretary shall establish and subject
to the Secretary's approval.
``(ii) Limitations.--The Secretary may condition such
payments on the achievement of such standards related to
efficiency, improvement in processes or outcomes of care, or
such other factors as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(3) Antidiscrimination limitation.--The Secretary shall
not enter into an agreement with an entity to provide health
care items or services under the demonstration program, or
with an entity to administer the program, unless such entity
guarantees that it will not deny, limit, or condition the
coverage or provision of benefits under the program, for
individuals eligible to be enrolled under such program, based
on any health status-related factor described in section
2702(a)(1) of the Public Health Service Act.
``(d) Limitations on Judicial Review.--The following
actions and determinations with respect to the demonstration
program shall not be subject to review by a judicial or
administrative tribunal:
``(1) Limiting the implementation of the program under
subsection (a)(2).
``(2) Establishment of program participation standards
under subsection (a)(5) or the denial or termination of, or
refusal to renew, an agreement with an entity to provide
health care items and services under the program.
``(3) Establishment of program administration contract
performance standards under subsection (b)(6), the refusal to
renew a program administration contract, or the
noncompetitive award or renewal of a program administration
contract under subsection (b)(4)(B).
``(5) Establishment of payment rates, through negotiation
or otherwise, under a program agreement or a program
administration contract.
``(6) A determination with respect to the program (where
specifically authorized by the program authority or by
subsection (c)(2))--
``(A) as to whether cost savings have been achieved, and
the amount of savings; or
``(B) as to whether, to whom, and in what amounts bonuses
will be paid.
``(e) Application Limited to Parts A and B.--None of the
provisions of this section or of the demonstration program
shall apply to the programs under part C.
``(f) Reports to Congress.--Not later than two years after
the date of the enactment of this section, and biennially
thereafter for six years, the Secretary shall report to
Congress on the use of authorities under the demonstration
program. Each report shall address the impact of the use of
those authorities on expenditures, access, and quality under
the programs under this title.''.
(b) GAO Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on
which the demonstration project under section 1866A of the
Social Security Act, as added by subsection (a), is
implemented, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit to Congress a report on such demonstration
project. The report shall include such recommendations with
respect to changes to the demonstration project that the
Comptroller General determines appropriate.
SEC. 413. STUDY ON ENROLLMENT PROCEDURES FOR GROUPS THAT
RETAIN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR PHYSICIANS.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the current medicare
enrollment process for groups that retain independent
contractor physicians with particular emphasis on hospital-
based physicians, such as emergency department staffing
groups. In conducting the evaluation, the Comptroller General
shall consult with groups that retain independent contractor
physicians and shall--
(1) review the issuance of individual medicare provider
numbers and the possible medicare program integrity
vulnerabilities of the current process;
(2) review direct and indirect costs associated with the
current process incurred by the medicare program and groups
that retain independent contractor physicians;
(3) assess the effect on program integrity by the
enrollment of groups that retain independent contractor
hospital-based physicians; and
(4) develop suggested procedures for the enrollment of
these groups.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a).
Subtitle C--Other Services
SEC. 421. 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON THERAPY CAPS;
REPORT ON STANDARDS FOR SUPERVISION OF PHYSICAL
THERAPY ASSISTANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1833(g)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(g)(4))
is amended by striking ``2000 and 2001.'' and inserting
``2000, 2001, and 2002.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment To Continue Focused Medical
Reviews of Claims During Moratorium Period.--Section
221(a)(2) of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-351) is amended by
striking ``(under the amendment made by paragraph (1)(B))''.
(c) Study on Standards for Supervision of Physical
Therapist Assistants.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a study of the implications--
(A) of eliminating the ``in the room'' supervision
requirement for medicare payment for services of physical
therapy assistants who are supervised by physical therapists;
and
(B) of such requirement on the cap imposed under section
1833(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(g)) on
physical therapy services.
(2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1).
SEC. 422. UPDATE IN RENAL DIALYSIS COMPOSITE RATE.
(a) Update.--
(1) In general.--The last sentence of section 1881(b)(7)
(42 U.S.C. 1395rr(b)(7)) is amended by striking ``for such
services furnished on or after January 1, 2001, by 1.2
percent'' and inserting ``for such services furnished on or
after January 1, 2001, by 2.4 percent''.
(2) Prohibition on Exemptions.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary
of Health and Human Services may not provide for an exception
under section 1881(b)(7) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395rr(b)(7)) on or after December 31, 2000.
(B) Special rules for 2000.--
(i) In general.--Any exemption rate under such section
1881(b)(7) in effect on December 31, 2000, shall continue in
effect so long as such rate is greater than the composite
rate as updated by the amendment made by paragraph (1).
(ii) Resubmission of certain applications.--In the case of
an application for an exemption rate under such section that
was filed by a facility during 2000 that was not approved by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the facility may
submit an application for an exemption rate for that year by
not later than July 1, 2001.
(b) Development of ESRD Market Basket.--
(1) Development.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall collect data and develop an ESRD market basket
whereby the Secretary can estimate, before the beginning of a
year, the percentage by which the costs for the year of the
mix of labor and nonlabor goods and services included in the
ESRD composite rate under section 1881(b)(7) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395rr(b)(7)) will exceed the costs
of such mix of goods and services for the preceding year. In
developing such index, the Secretary may take into account
measures of changes in--
(A) technology used in furnishing dialysis services;
(B) the manner or method of furnishing dialysis services;
and
(C) the amounts by which the payments under such section
for all services billed by a facility for a year exceed the
aggregate allowable audited costs of such services for such
facility for such year.
(2) Report.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall submit to Congress a report on the index developed
under paragraph (1) no later than July 1, 2002, and shall
include in the report recommendations on the appropriateness
of an annual or periodic update mechanism for renal dialysis
services under the medicare program under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act based on such index.
(c) Inclusion of Additional Services in Composite Rate.--
[[Page 24521]]
(1) Development.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall develop a system which includes, to the
maximum extent feasible, in the composite rate used for
payment under section 1881(b)(7) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395rr(b)(7)), payment for clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests and drugs (including drugs paid under
section 1881(b)(11)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395rr(b)(11)(B)) that are routinely used in furnishing
dialysis services to medicare beneficiaries but which are
currently separately billable by renal dialysis facilities.
(2) Report.--The Secretary shall include, as part of the
report submitted under subsection (b)(2), a report on the
system developed under paragraph (1) and recommendations on
the appropriateness of incorporating the system into medicare
payment for renal dialysis services.
(d) GAO Study on Access to Services.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall study access of medicare beneficiaries to renal
dialysis services. Such study shall include whether there is
a sufficient supply of facilities to furnish needed renal
dialysis services, whether medicare payment levels are
appropriate, taking into account audited costs of facilities
for all services furnished, to ensure continued access to
such services, and improvements in access (and quality of
care) that may result in the increased use of long nightly
and short daily hemodialysis modalities.
(2) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2003, the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the
study conducted under paragraph (1).
SEC. 423. PAYMENT FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES.
(a) Restoration of Full CPI Increase for 2001.--Section
1834(l)(3) (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)(3)) is amended by striking
``reduced in the case of 2001 and 2002'' each place it
appears and inserting ``reduced in the case of 2002''.
(b) Mileage Payments.--Section 1834(l)(2)(E) (42 U.S.C.
1395m(l)(2)(E)) is amended by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, except that, beginning on the date
on which the Secretary implements such fee schedule, such
phase-in shall provide for full payment of any national
mileage rate for ambulance services provided by suppliers
that are paid by carriers in any of the 50 States where
payment by a carrier for such services for all such suppliers
in such State did not, prior to the implementation of the fee
schedule, include a separate amount for all mileage within
the county from which the beneficiary is transported''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies to services furnished on or after the date on which
the Secretary of Health and Human Services implements the fee
schedule under section 1834(l) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395m(l)).
SEC. 424. AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTERS.
(a) Delay in Implementation of Prospective Payment
System.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services may not
implement a revised prospective payment system for services
of ambulatory surgical facilities under section 1833(i) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(i)) before January
1, 2002.
(b) Extending Phase-In to 4 Years.--Section 226 of the BBRA
(113 Stat. 1501A-354) is amended by striking paragraphs (1)
and (2) and inserting the following:
``(1) in the first year of its implementation, only a
proportion (specified by the Secretary and not to exceed \1/
4\) of the payment for such services shall be made in
accordance with such system and the remainder shall be made
in accordance with current regulations; and
``(2) in each of the following 2 years a proportion
(specified by the Secretary and not to exceed \1/2\, and \3/
4\, respectively) of the payment for such services shall be
made under such system and the remainder shall be made in
accordance with current regulations.''.
(c) Deadline for Use of 1999 or Later Cost Surveys.--
Section 226 of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-354) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``By not later than January 1, 2003, the Secretary shall
incorporate data from a 1999 medicare cost survey or a
subsequent cost survey for purposes of implementing or
revising such system.''.
SEC. 425. FULL UPDATE FOR DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 1834(a)(14) (42 U.S.C.
1395m(a)(14)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (F);
(2) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``through 2002'' and inserting ``through
2000''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraphs:
``(D) for 2001, the percentage increase in the Consumer
Price Index for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for
the 12-month period ending with June 2000;
``(E) for 2002, 0 percentage points; and''.
(b) Conforming Amendments to BBRA.--Subsection (a) of
section 228 of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-356) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``for such items'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``oxygen and oxygen
equipment for'' after ``(1)''; and
(3) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``all such covered items
for'' after ``(2)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of BBRA.
SEC. 426. FULL UPDATE FOR ORTHOTICS AND PROSTHETICS.
Section 1834(h)(4)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1395m(h)(4)(A)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (viii);
(2) in clause (v)--
(A) by striking ``through 2002'' and inserting ``through
2000''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(3) by inserting after clause (v) the following new clause:
``(vi) for 2001, the percentage increase in the consumer
price index for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for
the 12-month period ending with June 2000;
``(vii) for 2002, 1 percent; and''.
SEC. 427. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL PAYMENT PROVISIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS FOR PROSTHETICS AND CERTAIN CUSTOM
FABRICATED ORTHOTIC ITEMS.
(a) In General.--Section 1834(h)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1395m(h)(1))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Special payment rules for certain prosthetics and
custom fabricated orthotics.--
``(i) In general.--No payment shall be made under this
subsection for an item of custom fabricated orthotics
described in clause (ii) or for an item of prosthetics unless
such item is--
``(I) furnished by a qualified practitioner; and
``(II) fabricated by a qualified practitioner or a
qualified supplier at a facility that meets such criteria as
the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(ii) Description of custom fabricated item.--
``(I) In general.--An item described in this clause is an
item of custom fabricated orthotics that requires education,
training, and experience to custom fabricate and that is
included in a list established by the Secretary in subclause
(II). Such an item does not include shoes and shoe inserts.
``(II) List of items.--The Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate experts in orthotics (including national
organizations representing manufacturers of orthotics), shall
establish and update as appropriate a list of items to which
this subparagraph applies. No item may be included in such
list unless the item is individually fabricated for the
patient over a positive model of the patient.
``(iii) Qualified practitioner defined.--In this
subparagraph, the term `qualified practitioner' means a
physician or other individual who--
``(I) is a qualified physical therapist or a qualified
occupational therapist;
``(II) in the case of a State that provides for the
licensing of orthotics and prosthetics, is licensed in
orthotics or prosthetics by the State in which the item is
supplied; or
``(III) in the case of a State that does not provide for
the licensing of orthotics and prosthetics, is specifically
trained and educated to provide or manage the provision of
prosthetics and custom-designed or fabricated orthotics, and
is certified by the American Board for Certification in
Orthotics and Prosthetics, Inc. or by the Board for
Orthotist/Prosthetist Certification, or is credentialed and
approved by a program that the Secretary determines, in
consultation with appropriate experts in orthotics and
prosthetics, has training and education standards that are
necessary to provide such prosthetics and orthotics.
``(iv) Qualified supplier defined.--In this subparagraph,
the term `qualified supplier' means any entity that is
accredited by the American Board for Certification in
Orthotics and Prosthetics, Inc. or by the Board for
Orthotist/Prosthetist Certification, or accredited and
approved by a program that the Secretary determines has
accreditation and approval standards that are essentially
equivalent to those of such Board.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall promulgate revised regulations to carry
out the amendment made by subsection (a) using a negotiated
rulemaking process under subchapter III of chapter 5 of title
5, United States Code.
(c) GAO Study and Report.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on HCFA Ruling 96-1, issued on
September 1, 1996, with respect to distinguishing orthotics
from durable medical equipment under the medicare program
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act. The study shall
assess the following matters:
(A) The compliance of the Secretary of Health and Human
Services with the Administrative Procedures Act (under
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code) in making such
ruling.
(B) The potential impact of such ruling on the health care
furnished to medicare beneficiaries under the medicare
program, especially those beneficiaries with degenerative
musculoskeletal conditions.
(C) The potential for fraud and abuse under the medicare
program if payment were provided for orthotics used as a
component of durable medical equipment only when made under
the special payment provision for certain prosthetics and
custom fabricated orthotics under section 1834(h)(1)(F) of
the Social Security Act, as added by subsection (a) and
furnished by qualified practitioners under that section.
(D) The impact on payments under titles XVIII and XIX of
the Social Security Act if such ruling were overturned.
(2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under paragraph
(1).
SEC. 428. REPLACEMENT OF PROSTHETIC DEVICES AND PARTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1834(h)(1) (42 U.S.C.
1395m(h)(1)), as amended by section 427(a), is
[[Page 24522]]
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(G) Replacement of prosthetic devices and parts.--
``(i) In general.--Payment shall be made for the
replacement of prosthetic devices which are artificial limbs,
or for the replacement of any part of such devices, without
regard to continuous use or useful lifetime restrictions if
an ordering physician determines that the provision of a
replacement device, or a replacement part of such a device,
is necessary because of any of the following:
``(I) A change in the physiological condition of the
patient.
``(II) An irreparable change in the condition of the
device, or in a part of the device.
``(III) The condition of the device, or the part of the
device, requires repairs and the cost of such repairs would
be more than 60 percent of the cost of a replacement device,
or, as the case may be, of the part being replaced.
``(ii) Confirmation may be required if replacement device
or part is less than 3 years old.--If a physician determines
that a replacement device, or a replacement part, is
necessary pursuant to clause (i)--
``(I) such determination shall be controlling; and
``(II) such replacement device or part shall be deemed to
be reasonable and necessary for purposes of section
1862(a)(1)(A);
except that if the device, or part, being replaced is less
than 3 years old (calculated from the date on which the
beneficiary began to use the device or part), the Secretary
may also require confirmation of necessity of the replacement
device, or, as the case may be, the replacement part.''.
(b) Preemption of Rule.--The provisions of section
1834(h)(1)(G) as added by subsection (a) shall supersede any
rule that as of the date of the enactment of this Act may
have applied a 5-year replacement rule with regard to
prosthetic devices.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to items replaced on or after April 1, 2001.
SEC. 429. REVISED PART B PAYMENT FOR DRUGS AND BIOLOGICALS
AND RELATED SERVICES.
(a) Recommendations for Revised Payment Methodology for
Drugs and Biologicals.--
(1) Study.--
(A) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study on the reimbursement for drugs
and biologicals under the current medicare payment
methodology (provided under section 1842(o) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(o)) and for related services
under part B of title XVIII of such Act. In the study, the
Comptroller General shall--
(i) identify the average prices at which such drugs and
biologicals are acquired by physicians and other suppliers;
(ii) quantify the difference between such average prices
and the reimbursement amount under such section; and
(iii) determine the extent to which (if any) payment under
such part is adequate to compensate physicians, providers of
services, or other suppliers of such drugs and biologicals
for costs incurred in the administration, handling, or
storage of such drugs or biologicals.
(B) Consultation.--In conducting the study under
subparagraph (A), the Comptroller General shall consult with
physicians, providers of services, and suppliers of drugs and
biologicals under the medicare program under title XVIII of
such Act, as well as other organizations involved in the
distribution of such drugs and biologicals to such
physicians, providers of services, and suppliers.
(2) Report.--Not later than 9 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress and to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
a report on the study conducted under this subsection, and
shall include in such report recommendations for revised
payment methodologies described in paragraph (3).
(3) Recommendations for revised payment methodologies.--
(A) In general.--The Comptroller General shall provide
specific recommendations for revised payment methodologies
for reimbursement for drugs and biologicals and for related
services under the medicare program. The Comptroller General
may include in the recommendations--
(i) proposals to make adjustments under subsection (c) of
section 1848 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4)
for the practice expense component of the physician fee
schedule under such section for the costs incurred in the
administration, handling, or storage of certain categories of
such drugs and biologicals, if appropriate; and
(ii) proposals for new payments to providers of services or
suppliers for such costs, if appropriate.
(B) Ensuring patient access to care.--In making
recommendations under this paragraph, the Comptroller General
shall ensure that any proposed revised payment methodology is
designed to ensure that medicare beneficiaries continue to
have appropriate access to health care services under the
medicare program.
(C) Matters considered.--In making recommendations under
this paragraph, the Comptroller General shall consider--
(i) the method and amount of reimbursement for similar
drugs and biologicals made by large group health plans;
(ii) as a result of any revised payment methodology, the
potential for patients to receive inpatient or outpatient
hospital services in lieu of services in a physician's
office; and
(iii) the effect of any revised payment methodology on the
delivery of drug therapies by hospital outpatient
departments.
(D) Coordination with bbra study.--In making
recommendations under this paragraph, the Comptroller General
shall conclude and take into account the results of the study
provided for under section 213(a) of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-
350).
(b) Implementation of New Payment Methodology.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, based on the recommendations contained in the report
under subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, subject to paragraph (2), shall revise the payment
methodology under section 1842(o) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395u(o)) for drugs and biologicals furnished
under part B of the medicare program. To the extent the
Secretary determines appropriate, the Secretary may provide
for the adjustments to payments amounts referred to in
subsection (a)(3)(A)(i) or additional payments referred to in
subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii).
(2) Limitation.--In revising the payment methodology under
paragraph (1), in no case may the estimated aggregate
payments for drugs and biologicals under the revised system
(including additional payments referred to in subsection
(a)(3)(A)(ii)) exceed the aggregate amount of payment for
such drugs and biologicals, as projected by the Secretary,
that would have been made under the payment methodology in
effect under such section 1842(o).
(c) Temporary Injunction Against Reductions in Payment
Rates.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration may
not directly or indirectly increase or decrease the rates of
reimbursement (in effect on September 1, 2000) for drugs and
biologicals under the current medicare payment methodology
(provided under section 1842(o) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395u(o)) until such time as the Secretary has reviewed the
report submitted under subsection (a)(2).
SEC. 430. CONTRAST ENHANCED DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES UNDER
HOSPITAL PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM.
(a) Separate Classification.--Section 1833(t)(2) (42 U.S.C.
1395l(t)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new
subparagraph:
``(G) the Secretary shall create additional groups of
covered OPD services that classify separately those
procedures that utilize contrast media from those that do
not.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1861(t)(1) (42 U.S.C.
1395x(t)(1)) is amended by inserting ``(including contrast
agents)'' after ``only such drugs''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to items and services furnished on or after January 1,
2001.
SEC. 431. QUALIFICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTERS.
(a) Medicare Program.--Section 1861(ff)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C.
1395x(ff)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``entity'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``entity that--
``(i)(I) provides the mental health services described in
section 1913(c)(1) of the Public Health Service Act; or
``(II) in the case of an entity operating in a State that
by law precludes the entity from providing itself the service
described in subparagraph (E) of such section, provides for
such service by contract with an approved organization or
entity (as determined by the Secretary);
``(ii) meets applicable licensing or certification
requirements for community mental health centers in the State
in which it is located; and
``(iii) meets such additional conditions as the Secretary
shall specify to ensure (I) the health and safety of
individuals being furnished such services, (II) the effective
and efficient furnishing of such services, and (III) the
compliance of such entity with the criteria described in
section 1931(c)(1) of the Public Health Service Act.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies with respect to community mental health centers with
respect to services furnished on or after the first day of
the third month beginning after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 432. MODIFICATION OF MEDICARE BILLING REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTAIN INDIAN PROVIDERS.
(a) In General.--Section 1880(a) (42 U.S.C. 1395qq(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``A
hospital or a free-standing ambulatory care clinic (as
defined by the Secretary), whether operated by the Indian
Health Service or by an Indian tribe or tribal organization
(as those terms are defined in section 4 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act), shall be eligible for payments for
services for which payment is made pursuant to section 1848,
notwithstanding sections 1814(c) and 1835(d), if and for so
long as it meets all of the requirements which are applicable
generally to such payments, services, hospitals, and
clinics.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to services furnished on or after January 1,
2001.
SEC. 433. GAO STUDY ON COVERAGE OF SURGICAL FIRST ASSISTING
SERVICES OF CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE FIRST
ASSISTANTS.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the effect on the medicare program
under title XVIII
[[Page 24523]]
of the Social Security Act and on medicare beneficiaries of
coverage under the program of surgical first assisting
services of certified registered nurse first assistants. The
Comptroller General shall consider the following when
conducting the study:
(1) Any impact on the quality of care furnished to medicare
beneficiaries by reason of such coverage.
(2) Appropriate education and training requirements for
certified registered nurse first assistants who furnish such
first assisting services.
(3) Appropriate rates of payment under the program to such
certified registered nurse first assistants for furnishing
such services, taking into account the costs of compensation,
overhead, and supervision attributable to certified
registered nurse first assistants.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a).
SEC. 434. MEDPAC STUDY AND REPORT ON MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT
FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY CERTAIN PROVIDERS.
(a) Study.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission shall
conduct a study on the appropriateness of the current payment
rates under the medicare program under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act for services provided by a--
(1) certified nurse-midwife (as defined in subsection
(gg)(2) of section 1861 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x);
(2) physician assistant (as defined in subsection
(aa)(5)(A) of such section);
(3) nurse practitioner (as defined in such subsection); and
(4) clinical nurse specialist (as defined in subsection
(aa)(5)(B) of such section).
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a), together with any recommendations for legislation that
the Commission determines to be appropriate as a result of
such study.
SEC. 435. MEDPAC STUDY AND REPORT ON MEDICARE COVERAGE OF
SERVICES PROVIDED BY CERTAIN NONPHYSICIAN
PROVIDERS.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
shall conduct a study to determine the appropriateness of
providing coverage under the medicare program under title
XVIII of the Social Security Act for services provided by a--
(A) surgical technologist;
(B) marriage counselor;
(C) marriage and family therapist;
(D) pastoral care counselor; and
(E) licensed professional counselor of mental health.
(2) Costs to program.--The study shall consider the short-
term and long-term benefits, and costs to the medicare
program, of providing the coverage described in paragraph
(1).
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a), together with any recommendations for legislation that
the Commission determines to be appropriate as a result of
such study.
SEC. 436. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON THE COSTS OF EMERGENCY AND
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the costs of providing emergency and
medical transportation services across the range of acuity
levels of conditions for which such transportation services
are provided.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a), together with recommendations for any changes in
methodology or payment level necessary to fairly compensate
suppliers of emergency and medical transportation services
and to ensure the access of beneficiaries under the medicare
program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
SEC. 437. GAO STUDIES AND REPORTS ON MEDICARE PAYMENTS.
(a) GAO Study on HCFA Post-Payment Audit Process.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the post-payment audit process under
the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security
Act as such process applies to physicians, including the
proper level of resources that the Health Care Financing
Administration should devote to educating physicians
regarding--
(A) coding and billing;
(B) documentation requirements; and
(C) the calculation of overpayments.
(2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under paragraph
(1) together with specific recommendations for changes or
improvements in the post-payment audit process described in
such paragraph.
(b) GAO Study on Administration and Oversight.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on the aggregate effects of regulatory,
audit, oversight, and paperwork burdens on physicians and
other health care providers participating in the medicare
program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
(2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under paragraph
(1) together with recommendations regarding any area in
which--
(A) a reduction in paperwork, an ease of administration, or
an appropriate change in oversight and review may be
accomplished; or
(B) additional payments or education are needed to assist
physicians and other health care providers in understanding
and complying with any legal or regulatory requirements.
SEC. 438. MEDPAC STUDY ON ACCESS TO OUTPATIENT PAIN
MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
(a) Study.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission shall
conduct a study on the barriers to coverage and payment for
outpatient interventional pain medicine procedures under the
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security
Act. Such study shall examine--
(1) the specific barriers imposed under the medicare
program on the provision of pain management procedures in
hospital outpatient departments, ambulatory surgery centers,
and physicians' offices; and
(2) the consistency of medicare payment policies for pain
management procedures in those different settings.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report on the study.
TITLE V--PROVISIONS RELATING TO PARTS A AND B
Subtitle A--Home Health Services
SEC. 501. 1-YEAR ADDITIONAL DELAY IN APPLICATION OF 15
PERCENT REDUCTION ON PAYMENT LIMITS FOR HOME
HEALTH SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Section 1895(b)(3)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C.
1395fff(b)(3)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subclause (II) as subclause (III);
(2) in subclause (III), as redesignated, by striking
``described in subclause (I)'' and inserting ``described in
subclause (II)''; and
(3) by inserting after subclause (I) the following new
subclause:
``(II) For the 12-month period beginning after the period
described in subclause (I), such amount (or amounts) shall be
equal to the amount (or amounts) determined under subclause
(I), updated under subparagraph (B).''.
(b) Change in Report.--Section 302(c) of BBRA (113 Stat.
1501A-360) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Not later than'' and all that follows
through ``(42 U.S.C. 1395fff)'' and inserting ``Not later
than April 1, 2002''; and
(2) by striking ``Secretary'' and inserting ``Comptroller
General of the United States''.
(c) Case Mix Adjustment Corrections.--
(1) In general.--Section 1895(b)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C.
1395fff(b)(3)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(iv) Adjustment for case mix changes.--Insofar as the
Secretary determines that the adjustments under paragraph
(4)(A)(i) for a previous fiscal year (or estimates that such
adjustments for a future fiscal year) did (or are likely to)
result in a change in aggregate payments under this
subsection during the fiscal year that are a result of
changes in the coding or classification of different units of
services that do not reflect real changes in case mix, the
Secretary may adjust the standard prospective payment amount
(or amounts) under paragraph (3) for subsequent fiscal years
so as to eliminate the effect of such coding or
classification changes.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies to episodes concluding on or after October 1, 2001.
SEC. 502. RESTORATION OF FULL HOME HEALTH MARKET BASKET
UPDATE FOR HOME HEALTH SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR
2001.
(a) In General.--Section 1861(v)(1)(L)(x) (42 U.S.C.
1395x(v)(1)(L)(x)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2001,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``With respect to
cost reporting periods beginning during fiscal year 2001, the
update to any limit under this subparagraph shall be the home
health market basket index.''.
(b) Special Rule for Payment for Fiscal Year 2001 Based on
Adjusted Prospective Payment Amounts.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the amendments made by
subsection (a), for purposes of making payments under section
1895(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff(b)) for
home health services for fiscal year 2001, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall--
(A) with respect to episodes and visits ending on or after
October 1, 2000, and before April 1, 2001, use the final
standardized and budget neutral prospective payment amounts
for 60 day episodes and standardized average per visit
amounts for fiscal year 2001 as published by the Secretary in
Federal Register of the July 3, 2000 (65 Federal Register
41128-41214); and
(B) with respect to episodes and visits ending on or after
April 1, 2001, and before October 1, 2001, use such amounts
increased by 2.2 percent.
(2) No effect on other payments or determinations.--The
Secretary shall not take the provisions of paragraph (1) into
account for purposes of payments, determinations, or budget
neutrality adjustments under section 1895 of the Social
Security Act.
SEC. 503. TEMPORARY TWO-MONTH EXTENSION OF PERIODIC INTERIM
PAYMENTS.
(a) Temporary Extension.--Notwithstanding subsection (d) of
section 4603 of BBA (42 U.S.C. 1395fff note), as amended by
section 5101(c)(2) of the Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act
of 1998
[[Page 24524]]
(contained in division J of Public Law 105-277)), the
amendments made by subsection (b) of such section 4603 shall
not take effect until December 1, 2000, in the case of a home
health agency that was receiving periodic interim payments
under section 1815(e)(2) as of September 30, 2000.
(b) Payment Rule.--The amount of such periodic interim
payment made to a home health agency by reason of subsection
(a) during each of November and December, 2000, shall be
equal to the amount of such payment made to the agency in
their last full monthly periodic interim payment. Such amount
of payment shall be included in the tentative settlement of
the last cost report for the home health agency under the
payment system in effect prior to the implementation of the
prospective payment system under section 1895(b) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395fff(b)).
SEC. 504. USE OF TELEHEALTH IN DELIVERY OF HOME HEALTH
SERVICES.
Section 1895 (42 U.S.C. 1395fff) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Construction Related to Home Health Services.--
``(1) Telecommunications.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as preventing a home health agency furnishing a
home health unit of service for which payment is made under
the prospective payment system established by this section
for such units of service from furnishing services via a
telecommunication system if such services--
``(A) do not substitute for in-person home health services
ordered as part of a plan of care certified by a physician
pursuant to section 1814(a)(2)(C) or section 1835(a)(2)(A);
and
``(B) are not considered a home health visit for purposes
of eligibility or payment under this title.
``(2) Physician certification.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as waiving the requirement for a physician
certification under section 1814(a)(2)(C) or section
1835(a)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)(2)(C),
1395n(a)(2)(A)) for the payment for home health services,
whether or not furnished via a telecommunications system.''.
SEC. 505. STUDY ON COSTS TO HOME HEALTH AGENCIES OF
PURCHASING NONROUTINE MEDICAL SUPPLIES.
(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study on variations in prices paid by home
health agencies furnishing home health services under the
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act
in purchasing nonroutine medical supplies, including ostomy
supplies, and volumes if such supplies used, shall determine
the effect (if any) of variations on prices and volumes in
the provision of such services.
(b) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2001, the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the
study conducted under subsection (a), and shall include in
the report recommendations respecting whether payment for
nonroutine medical supplies furnished in connection with home
health services should be made separately from the
prospective payment system for such services.
SEC. 506. TREATMENT OF BRANCH OFFICES; GAO STUDY ON
SUPERVISION OF HOME HEALTH CARE PROVIDED IN
ISOLATED RURAL AREAS.
(a) Treatment of Branch Offices.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, in determining for purposes of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act whether an office of a home health agency
constitutes a branch office or a separate home health agency,
neither the time nor distance between a parent office of the
home health agency and a branch office shall be the sole
determinant of a home health agency's branch office status.
(2) Consideration of forms of technology in definition of
supervision.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services may
include forms of technology in determining what constitutes
``supervision'' for purposes of determining a home heath
agency's branch office status under paragraph (1).
(b) GAO Study.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the provision of adequate
supervision to maintain quality of home health services
delivered under the medicare program under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act in isolated rural areas. The study shall
evaluate the methods that home health agency branches and
subunits use to maintain adequate supervision in the delivery
of services to clients residing in those areas, how these
methods of supervision compare to requirements that subunits
independently meet medicare conditions of participation, and
the resources utilized by subunits to meet such conditions.
(2) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2002, the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the
study conducted under paragraph (1). The report shall include
recommendations on whether exceptions are needed for subunits
and branches of home health agencies under the medicare
program to maintain access to the home health benefit or
whether alternative policies should be developed to assure
adequate supervision and access and recommendations on
whether a national standard for supervision is appropriate.
SEC. 507. CLARIFICATION OF THE HOMEBOUND DEFINITION UNDER THE
MEDICARE HOME HEALTH BENEFIT.
(a) Clarification.--
(1) In general.--Sections 1814(a) and 1835(a) (42 U.S.C.
1395f(a) and 1395n(a)) are each amended--
(A) in the last sentence, by striking ``, and that absences
of the individual from home are infrequent or of relatively
short duration, or are attributable to the need to receive
medical treatment''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new sentences: ``Any
absence of an individual from the home attributable to the
need to receive health care treatment, including regular
absences for the purpose of participating in therapeutic,
psychosocial, or medical treatment in an adult day-care
program that is licensed or certified by a State, or
accredited, to furnish adult day-care services in the State
shall not disqualify an individual from being considered to
be `confined to his home'. Any other absence of an individual
from the home shall not so disqualify an individual if the
absence is of infrequent or of relatively short duration. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, any absence for the
purpose of attending a religious service shall be deemed to
be an absence of infrequent or short duration.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to items and services provided on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct an evaluation of the effect of the
amendment on the cost of and access to home health services
under the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under paragraph
(1).
Subtitle B--Direct Graduate Medical Education
SEC. 511. INCREASE IN FLOOR FOR DIRECT GRADUATE MEDICAL
EDUCATION PAYMENTS.
Section 1886(h)(2)(D)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(2)(D)(iii))
is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``in fiscal year 2001 at 70
percent of'' and inserting ``for''; and
(2) by inserting after ``70 percent'' the following: ``,
and for the cost reporting period beginning during fiscal
year 2002 shall not be less than 85 percent,''.
SEC. 512. CHANGE IN DISTRIBUTION FORMULA FOR MEDICARE+CHOICE-
RELATED NURSING AND ALLIED HEALTH EDUCATION
COSTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1886(l)(2)(C) (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(l)(2)(C)) is amended by striking all that follows
``multiplied by'' and inserting the following: ``the ratio
of--
``(i) the product of (I) the Secretary's estimate of the
ratio of the amount of payments made under section 1861(v) to
the hospital for nursing and allied health education
activities for the hospital's cost reporting period ending in
the second preceding fiscal year, to the hospital's total
inpatient days for such period, and (II) the total number of
inpatient days (as established by the Secretary) for such
period which are attributable to services furnished to
individuals who are enrolled under a risk sharing contract
with an eligible organization under section 1876 and who are
entitled to benefits under part A or who are enrolled with a
Medicare+Choice organization under part C; to
``(ii) the sum of the products determined under clause (i)
for such cost reporting periods.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies to portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or
after January 1, 2001.
Subtitle C--Changes in Medicare Coverage and Appeals Process
SEC. 521. REVISIONS TO MEDICARE APPEALS PROCESS.
(a) Conduct of Reconsiderations of Determinations by
Independent Contractors.--Section 1869 (42 U.S.C. 1395ff) is
amended to read as follows:
``determinations; appeals
``Sec. 1869. (a) Initial Determinations.--
``(1) Promulgations of regulations.--The Secretary shall
promulgate regulations and make initial determinations with
respect to benefits under part A or part B in accordance with
those regulations for the following:
``(A) The initial determination of whether an individual is
entitled to benefits under such parts.
``(B) The initial determination of the amount of benefits
available to the individual under such parts.
``(C) Any other initial determination with respect to a
claim for benefits under such parts, including an initial
determination by the Secretary that payment may not be made,
or may no longer be made, for an item or service under such
parts, an initial determination made by a utilization and
quality control peer review organization under section
1154(a)(2), and an initial determination made by an entity
pursuant to a contract (other than a contract under section
1852) with the Secretary to administer provisions of this
title or title XI.
``(2) Deadlines for making initial determinations.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in
promulgating regulations under paragraph (1), initial
determinations shall be concluded by not later than the 45-
day period beginning on the date the fiscal intermediary or
[[Page 24525]]
the carrier, as the case may be, receives a claim for
benefits from an individual as described in paragraph (1).
Notice of such determination shall be mailed to the
individual filing the claim before the conclusion of such 45-
day period.
``(B) Clean claims.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to any claim that is subject to the requirements of
section 1816(c)(2) or section 1842(c)(2).
``(3) Redeterminations.--
``(A) In general.--In promulgating regulations under
paragraph (1) with respect to initial determinations, such
regulations shall provide for a fiscal intermediary or a
carrier to make a redetermination with respect to a claim for
benefits that is denied in whole or in part.
``(B) Limitations.--
``(i) Appeals rights.--No initial determination may be
reconsidered or appealed under subsection (b) unless the
fiscal intermediary or carrier has made a redetermination of
that initial determination under this paragraph.
``(ii) Decision maker.--No redetermination may be made by
any individual involved in the initial determination.
``(C) Deadlines.--
``(i) Filing for redetermination.--A redetermination under
subparagraph (A) shall be available only if notice is filed
with the Secretary to request the redetermination by not
later than the end of the 120-day period beginning on the
date the individual receives notice of the initial
determination under paragraph (2).
``(ii) Concluding redeterminations.--Redeterminations shall
be concluded by not later than the 30-day period beginning on
the date the fiscal intermediary or the carrier, as the case
may be, receives a request for a redetermination. Notice of
such determination shall be mailed to the individual filing
the claim before the conclusion of such 30-day period.
``(D) Construction.--For purposes of the succeeding
provisions of this section a redetermination under this
paragraph shall be considered to be part of the initial
determination.
``(b) Appeal Rights.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Reconsideration of initial determination.--Subject to
subparagraph (D), any individual dissatisfied with any
initial determination under subsection (a)(1) shall be
entitled to reconsideration of the determination, and,
subject to subparagraphs (D) and (E), a hearing thereon by
the Secretary to the same extent as is provided in section
205(b) and to judicial review of the Secretary's final
decision after such hearing as is provided in section 205(g).
For purposes of the preceding sentence, any reference to the
`Commissioner of Social Security' or the `Social Security
Administration' in subsection (g) or (l) of section 205 shall
be considered a reference to the `Secretary' or the
`Department of Health and Human Services', respectively.
``(B) Representation by provider or supplier.--
``(i) In general.--Sections 206(a), 1102, and 1871 shall
not be construed as authorizing the Secretary to prohibit an
individual from being represented under this section by a
person that furnishes or supplies the individual, directly or
indirectly, with services or items, solely on the basis that
the person furnishes or supplies the individual with such a
service or item.
``(ii) Mandatory waiver of right to payment from
beneficiary.--Any person that furnishes services or items to
an individual may not represent an individual under this
section with respect to the issue described in section
1879(a)(2) unless the person has waived any rights for
payment from the beneficiary with respect to the services or
items involved in the appeal.
``(iii) Prohibition on payment for representation.--If a
person furnishes services or items to an individual and
represents the individual under this section, the person may
not impose any financial liability on such individual in
connection with such representation.
``(iv) Requirements for representatives of a beneficiary.--
The provisions of section 205(j) and section 206 (other than
subsection (a)(4) of such section) regarding representation
of claimants shall apply to representation of an individual
with respect to appeals under this section in the same manner
as they apply to representation of an individual under those
sections.
``(C) Succession of rights in cases of assignment.--The
right of an individual to an appeal under this section with
respect to an item or service may be assigned to the provider
of services or supplier of the item or service upon the
written consent of such individual using a standard form
established by the Secretary for such an assignment.
``(D) Time limits for filing appeals.--
``(i) Reconsiderations.--Reconsideration under subparagraph
(A) shall be available only if the individual described in
subparagraph (A) files notice with the Secretary to request
reconsideration by not later than the end of the 180-day
period beginning on the date the individual receives notice
of the redetermination under subsection (a)(3), or within
such additional time as the Secretary may allow.
``(ii) Hearings conducted by the secretary.--The Secretary
shall establish in regulations time limits for the filing of
a request for a hearing by the Secretary in accordance with
provisions in sections 205 and 206.
``(E) Amounts in controversy.--
``(i) In general.--A hearing (by the Secretary) shall not
be available to an individual under this section if the
amount in controversy is less than $100, and judicial review
shall not be available to the individual if the amount in
controversy is less than $1,000.
``(ii) Aggregation of claims.--In determining the amount in
controversy, the Secretary, under regulations, shall allow
two or more appeals to be aggregated if the appeals involve--
``(I) the delivery of similar or related services to the
same individual by one or more providers of services or
suppliers, or
``(II) common issues of law and fact arising from services
furnished to two or more individuals by one or more providers
of services or suppliers.
``(F) Expedited proceedings.--
``(i) Expedited determination.--In the case of an
individual who has received notice by a provider of services
that the provider of services plans--
``(I) to terminate services provided to an individual and a
physician certifies that failure to continue the provision of
such services is likely to place the individual's health at
significant risk, or
``(II) to discharge the individual from the provider of
services,
the individual may request, in writing or orally, an
expedited determination or an expedited reconsideration of an
initial determination made under subsection (a)(1), as the
case may be, and the Secretary shall provide such expedited
determination or expedited reconsideration.
``(ii) Expedited hearing.--In a hearing by the Secretary
under this section, in which the moving party alleges that no
material issues of fact are in dispute, the Secretary shall
make an expedited determination as to whether any such facts
are in dispute and, if not, shall render a decision
expeditiously.
``(G) Reopening and revision of determinations.--The
Secretary may reopen or revise any initial determination or
reconsidered determination described in this subsection under
guidelines established by the Secretary in regulations.
``(c) Conduct of Reconsiderations by Independent
Contractors.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into contracts
with qualified independent contractors to conduct
reconsiderations of initial determinations made under
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (a)(1). Contracts
shall be for an initial term of three years and shall be
renewable on a triennial basis thereafter.
``(2) Qualified independent contractor.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `qualified independent contractor'
means an entity or organization that is independent of any
organization under contract with the Secretary that makes
initial determinations under subsection (a)(1), and that
meets the requirements established by the Secretary
consistent with paragraph (3).
``(3) Requirements.--Any qualified independent contractor
entering into a contract with the Secretary under this
subsection shall meet the all of the following requirements:
``(A) In general.--The qualified independent contractor
shall perform such duties and functions and assume such
responsibilities as may be required by the Secretary to carry
out the provisions of this subsection, and shall have
sufficient training and expertise in medical science and
legal matters to make reconsiderations under this subsection.
``(B) Reconsiderations.--
``(i) In general.--The qualified independent contractor
shall review initial determinations. In the case an initial
determination made with respect to whether an item or service
is reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of
illness or injury (under section 1862(a)(1)(A)), such review
shall include consideration of the facts and circumstances of
the initial determination by a panel of physicians or other
appropriate health care professionals and any decisions with
respect to the reconsideration shall be based on applicable
information, including clinical experience and medical,
technical, and scientific evidence.
``(ii) Effect of national and local coverage
determinations.--
``(I) National coverage determinations.--If the Secretary
has made a national coverage determination pursuant to the
requirements established under the third sentence of section
1862(a), such determination shall be binding on the qualified
independent contractor in making a decision with respect to a
reconsideration under this section.
``(II) Local coverage determinations.--If the Secretary has
made a local coverage determination, such determination shall
not be binding on the qualified independent contractor in
making a decision with respect to a reconsideration under
this section. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the
qualified independent contractor shall consider the local
coverage determination in making such decision.
``(III) Absence of national or local coverage
determination.--In the absence of such a national coverage
determination or local coverage determination, the qualified
independent contractor shall make a decision with respect to
the reconsideration based on applicable information,
including clinical experience and medical, technical, and
scientific evidence.
``(C) Deadlines for decisions.--
``(i) Reconsiderations.--Except as provided in clauses
(iii) and (iv), the qualified independent contractor shall
conduct and conclude a reconsideration under subparagraph
(B), and mail the notice of the decision with respect to the
reconsideration by not later than the end of the 30-day
period beginning on the date a request for reconsideration
has been timely filed.
``(ii) Consequences of failure to meet deadline.--In the
case of a failure by the qualified independent contractor to
mail the notice of
[[Page 24526]]
the decision by the end of the period described in clause (i)
or to provide notice by the end of the period described in
clause (iii), as the case may be, the party requesting the
reconsideration or appeal may request a hearing before the
Secretary, notwithstanding any requirements for a
reconsidered determination for purposes of the party's right
to such hearing.
``(iii) Expedited reconsiderations.--The qualified
independent contractor shall perform an expedited
reconsideration under subsection (b)(1)(F) as follows:
``(I) Deadline for decision.--Notwithstanding section
216(j) and subject to clause (iv), not later than the end of
the 72-hour period beginning on the date the qualified
independent contractor has received a request for such
reconsideration and has received such medical or other
records needed for such reconsideration, the qualified
independent contractor shall provide notice (by telephone and
in writing) to the individual and the provider of services
and attending physician of the individual of the results of
the reconsideration. Such reconsideration shall be conducted
regardless of whether the provider of services or supplier
will charge the individual for continued services or whether
the individual will be liable for payment for such continued
services.
``(II) Consultation with beneficiary.--In such
reconsideration, the qualified independent contractor shall
solicit the views of the individual involved.
``(III) Special rule for hospital discharges.--A
reconsideration of a discharge from a hospital shall be
conducted under this clause in accordance with the provisions
of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of section 1154(e) as in
effect on the date that precedes the date of the enactment of
this subparagraph.
``(iv) Extension.--An individual requesting a
reconsideration under this subparagraph may be granted such
additional time as the individual specifies (not to exceed 14
days) for the qualified independent contractor to conclude
the reconsideration. The individual may request such
additional time in orally or in writing.
``(D) Limitation on individual reviewing determinations.--
``(i) Physicians and health care professional.--No
physician or health care professional under the employ of a
qualified independent contractor may review--
``(I) determinations regarding health care services
furnished to a patient if the physician or health care
professional was directly responsible for furnishing such
services; or
``(II) determinations regarding health care services
provided in or by an institution, organization, or agency, if
the physician or any member of the family of the physician or
health care professional has, directly or indirectly, a
significant financial interest in such institution,
organization, or agency.
``(ii) Family described.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the family of a physician or health care professional
includes the spouse (other than a spouse who is legally
separated from the physician or health care professional
under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance), children
(including stepchildren and legally adopted children),
grandchildren, parents, and grandparents of the physician or
health care professional.
``(E) Explanation of decision.--Any decision with respect
to a reconsideration of a qualified independent contractor
shall be in writing, and shall include a detailed explanation
of the decision as well as a discussion of the pertinent
facts and applicable regulations applied in making such
decision, and in the case of a determination of whether an
item or service is reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis
or treatment of illness or injury (under section
1862(a)(1)(A)) an explanation of the medical and scientific
rational for the decision.
``(F) Notice requirements.--Whenever a qualified
independent contractor makes a decision with respect to a
reconsideration under this subsection, the qualified
independent contractor shall promptly notify the entity
responsible for the payment of claims under part A or part B
of such decision.
``(G) Dissemination of decisions on reconsiderations.--Each
qualified independent contractor shall make available all
decisions with respect to reconsiderations of such qualified
independent contractors to fiscal intermediaries (under
section 1816), carriers (under section 1842), peer review
organizations (under part B of title XI), Medicare+Choice
organizations offering Medicare+Choice plans under part C,
other entities under contract with the Secretary to make
initial determinations under part A or part B or title XI,
and to the public. The Secretary shall establish a
methodology under which qualified independent contractors
shall carry out this subparagraph.
``(H) Ensuring consistency in decisions.--Each qualified
independent contractor shall monitor its decisions with
respect to reconsiderations to ensure the consistency of such
decisions with respect to requests for reconsideration of
similar or related matters.
``(I) Data collection.--
``(i) In general.--Consistent with the requirements of
clause (ii), a qualified independent contractor shall collect
such information relevant to its functions, and keep and
maintain such records in such form and manner as the
Secretary may require to carry out the purposes of this
section and shall permit access to and use of any such
information and records as the Secretary may require for such
purposes.
``(ii) Type of data collected.--Each qualified independent
contractor shall keep accurate records of each decision made,
consistent with standards established by the Secretary for
such purpose. Such records shall be maintained in an
electronic database in a manner that provides for
identification of the following:
``(I) Specific claims that give rise to appeals.
``(II) Situations suggesting the need for increased
education for providers of services, physicians, or
suppliers.
``(III) Situations suggesting the need for changes in
national or local coverage policy.
``(IV) Situations suggesting the need for changes in local
medical review policies.
``(iii) Annual reporting.--Each qualified independent
contractor shall submit annually to the Secretary (or
otherwise as the Secretary may request) records maintained
under this paragraph for the previous year.
``(J) Hearings by the secretary.--The qualified independent
contractor shall (i) prepare such information as is required
for an appeal of a decision of the contractor with respect to
a reconsideration to the Secretary for a hearing, including
as necessary, explanations of issues involved in the decision
and relevant policies, and (ii) participate in such hearings
as required by the Secretary.
``(4) Number of qualified independent contractors.--The
Secretary shall enter into contracts with not fewer than 12
qualified independent contractors under this subsection.
``(5) Limitation on qualified independent contractor
liability.--No qualified independent contractor having a
contract with the Secretary under this subsection and no
person who is employed by, or who has a fiduciary
relationship with, any such qualified independent contractor
or who furnishes professional services to such qualified
independent contractor, shall be held by reason of the
performance of any duty, function, or activity required or
authorized pursuant to this subsection or to a valid contract
entered into under this subsection, to have violated any
criminal law, or to be civilly liable under any law of the
United States or of any State (or political subdivision
thereof) provided due care was exercised in the performance
of such duty, function, or activity.
``(d) Deadlines for Hearings by the Secretary.--
``(1) Hearing by administrative law judge.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
an administrative law judge shall conduct and conclude a
hearing on a decision of a qualified independent contractor
under subsection (c) and render a decision on such hearing by
not later than the end of the 90-day period beginning on the
date a request for hearing has been timely filed.
``(B) Waiver of deadline by party seeking hearing.--The 90-
day period under subparagraph (A) shall not apply in the case
of a motion or stipulation by the party requesting the
hearing to waive such period.
``(2) Departmental appeals board review.--
``(A) In general.--The Departmental Appeals Board of the
Department of Health and Human Services shall conduct and
conclude a review of the decision on a hearing described in
paragraph (1) and make a decision or remand the case to the
administrative law judge for reconsideration by not later
than the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date a
request for review has been timely filed.
``(B) DAB hearing procedure.--In reviewing a decision on a
hearing under this paragraph, the Departmental Appeals Board
shall review the case de novo.
``(3) Consequences of failure to meet deadlines.--
``(A) Hearing by administrative law judge.--In the case of
a failure by an administrative law judge to render a decision
by the end of the period described in paragraph (1), the
party requesting the hearing may request a review by the
Departmental Appeals Board of the Department of Health and
Human Services, notwithstanding any requirements for a
hearing for purposes of the party's right to such a review.
``(B) Departmental appeals board review.--In the case of a
failure by the Departmental Appeals Board to render a
decision by the end of the period described in paragraph (2),
the party requesting the hearing may seek judicial review,
notwithstanding any requirements for a hearing for purposes
of the party's right to such judicial review.
``(e) Administrative Provisions.--
``(1) Limitation on review of certain regulations.--A
regulation or instruction that relates to a method for
determining the amount of payment under part B and that was
initially issued before January 1, 1981, shall not be subject
to judicial review.
``(2) Outreach.--The Secretary shall perform such outreach
activities as are necessary to inform individuals entitled to
benefits under this title and providers of services and
suppliers with respect to their rights of, and the process
for, appeals made under this section. The Secretary shall use
the toll-free telephone number maintained by the Secretary
under section 1804(b) to provide information regarding appeal
rights and respond to inquiries regarding the status of
appeals.
``(3) Continuing education requirement for qualified
independent contractors and administrative law judges.--The
Secretary shall provide to each qualified independent
contractor, and, in consultation with the Commissioner of
Social Security, to administrative law judges that decide
appeals of reconsiderations of initial determinations or
other decisions or determinations under this section, such
continuing
[[Page 24527]]
education with respect to coverage of items and services
under this title or policies of the Secretary with respect to
part B of title XI as is necessary for such qualified
independent contractors and administrative law judges to make
informed decisions with respect to appeals.
``(4) Reports.--
``(A) Annual report to congress.--The Secretary shall
submit to Congress an annual report describing the number of
appeals for the previous year, identifying issues that
require administrative or legislative actions, and including
any recommendations of the Secretary with respect to such
actions. The Secretary shall include in such report an
analysis of determinations by qualified independent
contractors with respect to inconsistent decisions and an
analysis of the causes of any such inconsistencies.
``(B) Survey.--Not less frequently than every 5 years, the
Secretary shall conduct a survey of a valid sample of
individuals entitled to benefits under this title who have
filed appeals of determinations under this section, providers
of services, and suppliers to determine the satisfaction of
such individuals or entities with the process for appeals of
determinations provided for under this section and education
and training provided by the Secretary with respect to that
process. The Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
describing the results of the survey, and shall include any
recommendations for administrative or legislative actions
that the Secretary determines appropriate.''.
(b) Applicability of Requirements and Limitations on
Liability of Qualified Independent Contractors to
Medicare+Choice Independent Appeals Contractors.--Section
1852(g)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(g)(4)) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``The provisions of section 1869(c)(5)
shall apply to independent outside entities under contract
with the Secretary under this paragraph.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1154(e) (42 U.S.C.
1320c-3(e)) is amended by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and
(4).
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply with respect to initial determinations made on or after
October 1, 2002.
SEC. 522. REVISIONS TO MEDICARE COVERAGE PROCESS.
(a) Review of Determinations.--Section 1869 (42 U.S.C.
1395ff), as amended by section 521, is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Review of Coverage Determinations.--
``(1) National coverage determinations.--
``(A) In general.--Review of any national coverage
determination shall be subject to the following limitations:
``(i) Such a determination shall not be reviewed by any
administrative law judge.
``(ii) Such a determination shall not be held unlawful or
set aside on the ground that a requirement of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, or section 1871(b) of this
title, relating to publication in the Federal Register or
opportunity for public comment, was not satisfied.
``(iii) Upon the filing of a complaint by an aggrieved
party, such a determination shall be reviewed by the
Departmental Appeals Board of the Department of Health and
Human Services. In conducting such a review, the Departmental
Appeals Board shall review the record and shall permit
discovery and the taking of evidence to evaluate the
reasonableness of the determination, if the Board determines
that the record is incomplete or lacks adequate information
to support the validity of the determination. In reviewing
such a determination, the Departmental Appeals Board shall
defer only to the reasonable findings of fact, reasonable
interpretations of law, and reasonable applications of fact
to law by the Secretary.
``(iv) A decision of the Departmental Appeals Board
constitutes a final agency action and is subject to judicial
review.
``(B) Definition of national coverage determination.--For
purposes of this section, the term `national coverage
determination' means a determination by the Secretary with
respect to whether or not a particular item or service is
covered nationally under this title, but does not include a
determination of what code, if any, is assigned to a
particular item or service covered under this title or a
determination with respect to the amount of payment made for
a particular item or service so covered.
``(2) Local coverage determination.--
``(A) In general.--Review of any local coverage
determination shall be subject to the following limitations:
``(i) Upon the filing of a complaint by an aggrieved party,
such a determination shall be reviewed by an administrative
law judge of the Social Security Administration. The
administrative law judge shall review the record and shall
permit discovery and the taking of evidence to evaluate the
reasonableness of the determination, if the administrative
law judge determines that the record is incomplete or lacks
adequate information to support the validity of the
determination. In reviewing such a determination, the
administrative law judge shall defer only to the reasonable
findings of fact, reasonable interpretations of law, and
reasonable applications of fact to law by the Secretary.
``(ii) Upon the filing of a complaint by an aggrieved
party, a decision of an administrative law judge under clause
(i) shall be reviewed by the Departmental Appeals Board of
the Department of Health and Human Services.
``(iii) A decision of the Departmental Appeals Board
constitutes a final agency action and is subject to judicial
review.
``(B) Definition of local coverage determination.--For
purposes of this section, the term `local coverage
determination' means a determination by a fiscal intermediary
or a carrier under part A or part B, as applicable,
respecting whether or not a particular item or service is
covered on an intermediary- or carrier-wide basis under such
parts, in accordance with section 1862(a)(1)(A).
``(3) No material issues of fact in dispute.--In the case
of a determination that may otherwise be subject to review
under paragraph (1)(A)(iii) or paragraph (2)(A)(i), where the
moving party alleges that--
``(A) there are no material issues of fact in dispute, and
``(B) the only issue of law is the constitutionality of a
provision of this title, or that a regulation, determination,
or ruling by the Secretary is invalid,
the moving party may seek review by a court of competent
jurisdiction without filing a complaint under such paragraph
and without otherwise exhausting other administrative
remedies.
``(4) Pending national coverage determinations.--
``(A) In general.--In the event the Secretary has not
issued a national coverage or noncoverage determination with
respect to a particular type or class of items or services,
an aggrieved person (as described in paragraph (5)) may
submit to the Secretary a request to make such a
determination with respect to such items or services. By not
later than the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date
the Secretary receives such a request (notwithstanding the
receipt by the Secretary of new evidence (if any) during such
90-day period), the Secretary shall take one of the following
actions:
``(i) Issue a national coverage determination, with or
without limitations.
``(ii) Issue a national noncoverage determination.
``(iii) Issue a determination that no national coverage or
noncoverage determination is appropriate as of the end of
such 90-day period with respect to national coverage of such
items or services.
``(iv) Issue a notice that states that the Secretary has
not completed a review of the request for a national coverage
determination and that includes an identification of the
remaining steps in the Secretary's review process and a
deadline by which the Secretary will complete the review and
take an action described in subclause (I), (II), or (III).
``(B) In the case of an action described in clause (i)(IV),
if the Secretary fails to take an action referred to in such
clause by the deadline specified by the Secretary under such
clause, then the Secretary is deemed to have taken an action
described in clause (i)(III) as of the deadline.
``(C) When issuing a determination under clause (i), the
Secretary shall include an explanation of the basis for the
determination. An action taken under clause (i) (other than
subclause (IV)) is deemed to be a national coverage
determination for purposes of review under subparagraph (A).
``(5) Standing.--An action under this subsection seeking
review of a national coverage determination or local coverage
determination may be initiated only by individuals entitled
to benefits under part A, or enrolled under part B, or both,
who are in need of the items or services that are the subject
of the coverage determination.
``(6) Publication on the internet of decisions of hearings
of the secretary.--Each decision of a hearing by the
Secretary with respect to a national coverage determination
shall be made public, and the Secretary shall publish each
decision on the Medicare Internet site of the Department of
Health and Human Services. The Secretary shall remove from
such decision any information that would identify any
individual, provider of services, or supplier.
``(7) Annual report on national coverage determinations.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than December 1 of each year,
beginning in 2001, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report that sets forth a detailed compilation of the actual
time periods that were necessary to complete and fully
implement national coverage determinations that were made in
the previous fiscal year for items, services, or medical
devices not previously covered as a benefit under this title,
including, with respect to each new item, service, or medical
device, a statement of the time taken by the Secretary to
make and implement the necessary coverage, coding, and
payment determinations, including the time taken to complete
each significant step in the process of making and
implementing such determinations.
``(B) Publication of reports on the internet.--The
Secretary shall publish each report submitted under clause
(i) on the medicare Internet site of the Department of Health
and Human Services.
``(8) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed as permitting administrative or judicial review
pursuant to this section insofar as such review is explicitly
prohibited or restricted under another provision of law.''.
(b) Establishment of a Process for Coverage
Determinations.--Section 1862(a) (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In
making a national coverage determination (as defined in
paragraph (1)(B) of section 1869(f)) the Secretary shall
ensure that the public is afforded notice and opportunity to
comment prior to implementation by the Secretary of the
determination; meetings of advisory committees established
under section 1114(f) with respect to the determination are
made on the record; in making the determination, the
Secretary has considered applicable information (including
clinical
[[Page 24528]]
experience and medical, technical, and scientific evidence)
with respect to the subject matter of the determination; and
in the determination, provide a clear statement of the basis
for the determination (including responses to comments
received from the public), the assumptions underlying that
basis, and make available to the public the data (other than
proprietary data) considered in making the determination.''.
(c) Improvements to the Medicare Advisory Committee
Process.--Section 1114 (42 U.S.C. 1314) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(i)(1) Any advisory committee appointed under subsection
(f) to advise the Secretary on matters relating to the
interpretation, application, or implementation of section
1862(a)(1) shall assure the full participation of a nonvoting
member in the deliberations of the advisory committee, and
shall provide such nonvoting member access to all information
and data made available to voting members of the advisory
committee, other than information that--
``(A) is exempt from disclosure pursuant to subsection (a)
of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of
subsection (b)(4) of such section (relating to trade
secrets); or
``(B) the Secretary determines would present a conflict of
interest relating to such nonvoting member.
``(2) If an advisory committee described in paragraph (1)
organizes into panels of experts according to types of items
or services considered by the advisory committee, any such
panel of experts may report any recommendation with respect
to such items or services directly to the Secretary without
the prior approval of the advisory committee or an executive
committee thereof.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply with respect to--
(1) a review of any national or local coverage
determination filed,
(2) a request to make such a determination made,
(3) a national coverage determination made,
on or after October 1, 2001.
Subtitle D--Improving Access to New Technologies
SEC. 531. REIMBURSEMENT IMPROVEMENTS FOR NEW CLINICAL
LABORATORY TESTS AND DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT.
(a) Payment Rule for New Laboratory Tests.--Section
1833(h)(4)(B)(viii) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(h)(4)(B)(viii)) is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``(or 100 percent of such median in the case of a
clinical diagnostic laboratory test performed on or after
January 1, 2001, that the Secretary determines is a new test
for which no limitation amount has previously been
established under this subparagraph)''.
(b) Establishment of Coding and Payment Procedures for New
Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests and Other Items on a Fee
Schedule.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish procedures for coding and payment
determinations for the categories of new clinical diagnostic
laboratory tests and new durable medical equipment under part
B of the title XVIII of the Social Security Act that permit
public consultation in a manner consistent with the
procedures established for implementing coding modifications
for ICD-9-CM.
(c) Report on Procedures Used for Advanced, Improved
Technologies.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit to Congress a report that identifies
the specific procedures used by the Secretary under part B of
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust payments for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and durable medical
equipment which are classified to existing codes where,
because of an advance in technology with respect to the test
or equipment, there has been a significant increase or
decrease in the resources used in the test or in the
manufacture of the equipment, and there has been a
significant improvement in the performance of the test or
equipment. The report shall include such recommendations for
changes in law as may be necessary to assure fair and
appropriate payment levels under such part for such improved
tests and equipment as reflects increased costs necessary to
produce improved results.
SEC. 532. RETENTION OF HCPCS LEVEL III CODES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall maintain and continue the use of level III codes of the
HCPCS coding system (as such system was in effect on August
16, 2000) through December 31, 2003, and shall make such
codes available to the public.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``HCPCS Level III codes'' means the alphanumeric codes for
local use under the Health Care Financing Administration
Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS).
SEC. 533. RECOGNITION OF NEW MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES UNDER
INPATIENT HOSPITAL PPS.
(a) Expediting Recognition of New Technologies Into
Inpatient PPS Coding System.--
(1) Report.--Not later than April 1, 2001, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report
on methods of expeditiously incorporating new medical
services and technologies into the clinical coding system
used with respect to payment for inpatient hospital services
furnished under the medicare program under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act, together with a detailed description of
the Secretary's preferred methods to achieve this purpose.
(2) Implementation.--Not later than October 1, 2001, the
Secretary shall implement the preferred methods described in
the report transmitted pursuant to paragraph (1).
(b) Ensuring Appropriate Payments for Hospitals
Incorporating New Medical Services and Technologies.--
(1) Establishment of mechanism.--Section 1886(d)(5) (42
U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraphs:
``(K)(i) Effective for discharges beginning on or after
October 1, 2001, the Secretary shall establish a mechanism to
recognize the costs of new medical services and technologies
under the payment system established under this subsection.
Such mechanism shall be established after notice and
opportunity for public comment (in the publications required
by subsection (e)(5) for a fiscal year or otherwise).
``(ii) The mechanism established pursuant to clause (i)
shall--
``(I) apply to a new medical service or technology if,
based on the estimated costs incurred with respect to
discharges involving such service or technology, the DRG
prospective payment rate otherwise applicable to such
discharges under this subsection is inadequate;
``(II) provide for the collection of data with respect to
the costs of a new medical service or technology described in
subclause (I) for a period of not less than two years and not
more than three years beginning on the date on which an
inpatient hospital code is issued with respect to the service
or technology;
``(III) subject to paragraph (4)(C)(iii), provide for
additional payment to be made under this subsection with
respect to discharges involving a new medical service or
technology described in subclause (I) that occur during the
period described in subclause (II) in an amount that
adequately reflects the estimated average cost of such
service or technology; and
``(IV) provide that discharges involving such a service or
technology that occur after the close of the period described
in subclause (II) will be classified within a new or existing
diagnosis-related group with a weighting factor under
paragraph (4)(B) that is derived from cost data collected
with respect to discharges occurring during such period.
``(iii) For purposes of clause (ii)(II), the term
`inpatient hospital code' means any code that is used with
respect to inpatient hospital services for which payment may
be made under this subsection and includes an alphanumeric
code issued under the International Classification of
Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (`ICD-9-CM')
and its subsequent revisions.
``(iv) For purposes of clause (ii)(III), the term
`additional payment' means, with respect to a discharge for a
new medical service or technology described in clause
(ii)(I), an amount that exceeds the prospective payment rate
otherwise applicable under this subsection to discharges
involving such service or technology that would be made but
for this subparagraph.
``(v) The requirement under clause (ii)(III) for an
additional payment may be satisfied by means of a new-
technology group (described in subparagraph (L)), an add-on
payment, a payment adjustment, or any other similar mechanism
for increasing the amount otherwise payable with respect to a
discharge under this subsection. The Secretary may not
establish a separate fee schedule for such additional payment
for such services and technologies, by utilizing a
methodology established under subsection (a) or (h) of
section 1834 to determine the amount of such additional
payment, or by other similar mechanisms or methodologies.
``(vi) For purposes of this subparagraph and subparagraph
(L), a medical service or technology will be considered a
`new medical service or technology' if the service or
technology meets criteria established by the Secretary after
notice and an opportunity for public comment.
``(L)(i) In establishing the mechanism under subparagraph
(K), the Secretary may establish new-technology groups into
which a new medical service or technology will be classified
if, based on the estimated average costs incurred with
respect to discharges involving such service or technology,
the DRG prospective payment rate otherwise applicable to such
discharges under this subsection is inadequate.
``(ii) Such groups--
``(I) shall not be based on the costs associated with a
specific new medical service or technology; but
``(II) shall, in combination with the applicable
standardized amounts and the weighting factors assigned to
such groups under paragraph (4)(B), reflect such cost cohorts
as the Secretary determines are appropriate for all new
medical services and technologies that are likely to be
provided as inpatient hospital services in a fiscal year.
``(iii) The methodology for classifying specific hospital
discharges within a diagnosis-related group under paragraph
(4)(A) or a new-technology group shall provide that a
specific hospital discharge may not be classified within both
a diagnosis-related group and a new-technology group.''.
(2) Prior consultation.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall consult with groups representing hospitals,
physicians, and manufacturers of new medical technologies
before publishing the notice of proposed rulemaking required
by section 1886(d)(5)(K)(i) of the Social Security Act (as
added by paragraph (1)).
[[Page 24529]]
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 1886(d)(4)(C)(i) (42
U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(4)(C)(i)) is amended by striking
``technology,'' and inserting ``technology (including a new
medical service or technology under paragraph (5)(K)),''.
Subtitle E--Other Provisions
SEC. 541. INCREASE IN REIMBURSEMENT FOR BAD DEBT.
Section 1861(v)(1)(T) (42 U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)(T)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in clause (iii)--
(A) by striking ``during a subsequent fiscal year'' and
inserting ``during fiscal year 2000''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``,
and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) for cost reporting periods beginning during a
subsequent fiscal year, by 30 percent of such amount
otherwise allowable.''.
SEC. 542. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PHYSICIAN PATHOLOGY SERVICES
UNDER MEDICARE.
(a) In General.--When an independent laboratory furnishes
the technical component of a physician pathology service to a
fee-for-service medicare beneficiary who is an inpatient or
outpatient of a covered hospital, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall treat such component as a service for
which payment shall be made to the laboratory under section
1848 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) and not
as an inpatient hospital service for which payment is made to
the hospital under section 1886(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)) or as an outpatient hospital service for which
payment is made to the hospital under section 1833(t) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)).
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Covered hospital.--The term ``covered hospital'' means,
with respect to an inpatient or an outpatient, a hospital
that had an arrangement with an independent laboratory that
was in effect as of July 22, 1999, under which a laboratory
furnished the technical component of physician pathology
services to fee-for-service medicare beneficiaries who were
hospital inpatients or outpatients, respectively, and
submitted claims for payment for such component to a medicare
carrier (that has a contract with the Secretary under section
1842 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395u) and not to
such hospital.
(2) Fee-for-service medicare beneficiary.--The term ``fee-
for-service medicare beneficiary'' means an individual who--
(A) is entitled to benefits under part A, or enrolled under
part B, or both, of such title; and
(B) is not enrolled in any of the following:
(i) A Medicare+Choice plan under part C of such title.
(ii) A plan offered by an eligible organization under
section 1876 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm).
(iii) A program of all-inclusive care for the elderly
(PACE) under section 1894 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395eee).
(iv) A social health maintenance organization (SHMO)
demonstration project established under section 4018(b) of
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law
100-203).
(c) Effective Date.--This section applies to services
furnished during the 2-year period beginning on January 1,
2001.
(d) GAO Report.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the effects of the previous
provisions of this section on hospitals and laboratories and
access of fee-for-service medicare beneficiaries to the
technical component of physician pathology services.
(2) Report.--Not later than April 1, 2002, the Comptroller
General shall submit to Congress a report on such study. The
report shall include recommendations about whether such
provisions should be extended after the end of the period
specified in subsection (c) for either or both inpatient and
outpatient hospital services, and whether the provisions
should be extended to other hospitals.
SEC. 543. EXTENSION OF ADVISORY OPINION AUTHORITY.
Section 1128D(b)(6) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7d(b)(6)) is amended
by striking ``and before the date which is 4 years after such
date of enactment''.
SEC. 544. CHANGE IN ANNUAL MEDPAC REPORTING.
(a) Revision of Deadlines for Submission of Reports.--
(1) In general.--Section 1805(b)(1)(D) (42 U.S.C. 1395b-
6(b)(1)(D)) is amended by striking ``June 1 of each year
(beginning with 1998),'' and inserting ``June 15 of each
year,''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
applies beginning with 2001.
(b) Requirement for on the Record Votes on
Recommendations.--Section 1805(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395b-6(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Voting and reporting requirements.--With respect to
each recommendation contained in a report submitted under
paragraph (1), each member of the Commission shall vote on
the recommendation, and the Commission shall include, by
member, the results of that vote in the report containing the
recommendation.''.
SEC. 545. DEVELOPMENT OF PATIENT ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS.
(a) Development.--
(1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2005, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to the
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Commerce of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of
the Senate a report on the development of standard
instruments for the assessment of the health and functional
status of patients, for whom items and services described in
subsection (b) are furnished, and include in the report a
recommendation on the use of such standard instruments for
payment purposes.
(2) Design for comparison of common elements.--The
Secretary shall design such standard instruments in a manner
such that--
(A) elements that are common to the items and services
described in subsection (b) may be readily comparable and are
statistically compatible;
(B) only elements necessary to meet program objectives are
collected; and
(C) the standard instruments supersede any other assessment
instrument used before that date.
(3) Consultation.--In developing an assessment instrument
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, and qualified organizations
representing providers of services and suppliers under title
XVIII.
(b) Description of Services.--For purposes of subsection
(a), items and services described in this subsection are
those items and services furnished to individuals entitled to
benefits under part A, or enrolled under part B, or both of
title XVIII of the Social Security Act for which payment is
made under such title, and include the following:
(1) Inpatient and outpatient hospital services.
(2) Inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation services.
(3) Covered skilled nursing facility services.
(4) Home health services.
(5) Physical or occupational therapy or speech-language
pathology services.
(6) Items and services furnished to such individuals
determined to have end stage renal disease.
(7) Partial hospitalization services and other mental
health services.
(8) Any other service for which payment is made under such
title as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
SEC. 546. GAO REPORT ON IMPACT OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TREATMENT AND ACTIVE LABOR ACT (EMTALA) ON
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS.
(a) Report.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce and the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate by May 1, 2001, on
the effect of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active
Labor Act on hospitals, emergency physicians, and physicians
covering emergency department call throughout the United
States.
(b) Report Requirements.--The report should evaluate--
(1) the extent to which hospitals, emergency physicians,
and physicians covering emergency department call provide
uncompensated services in relation to the requirements of
EMTALA;
(2) the extent to which the regulatory requirements and
enforcement of EMTALA have expanded beyond the legislation's
original intent;
(3) estimates for the total dollar amount of EMTALA-related
care uncompensated costs to emergency physicians, physicians
covering emergency department call, hospital emergency
departments, and other hospital services;
(4) the extent to which different portions of the United
States may be experiencing different levels of uncompensated
EMTALA-related care;
(5) the extent to which EMTALA would be classified as an
unfunded mandate if it were enacted today;
(6) the extent to which States have programs to provide
financial support for such uncompensated care;
(7) possible sources of funds, including medicare hospital
bad debt accounts, that are available to hospitals to assist
with the cost of such uncompensated care; and
(8) the financial strain that illegal immigration
populations, the uninsured, and the underinsured place on
hospital emergency departments, other hospital services,
emergency physicians, and physicians covering emergency
department call.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the terms ``Emergency
Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act'' and ``EMTALA'' mean
section 1867 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395dd).
TITLE VI--PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART C (MEDICARE+CHOICE PROGRAM) AND
OTHER MEDICARE MANAGED CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Medicare+Choice Payment Reforms
SEC. 601. INCREASE IN MINIMUM PAYMENT AMOUNT.
Section 1853(c)(1)(B)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(c)(1)(B)(ii))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``(ii) For a succeeding year'' and
inserting ``(ii)(I) Subject to subclauses (II) and (III), for
a succeeding year''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subclauses:
``(II) For 2001, for any area in a Metropolitan Statistical
Area within any of the 50 States and the District of Columbia
with a population of more than 250,000, $525 (and for any
other area within any of the 50 States, $475).
``(III) For 2001, for any area in a Metropolitan
Statistical Area outside the 50 States and the District of
Columbia with a population of more than 250,000, $525 (and
for any other area outside the 50 States and the District of
Columbia, $475), but not to exceed 120 percent of the amount
determined under this subparagraph for such area for 2000.''.
[[Page 24530]]
SEC. 602. INCREASE IN MINIMUM PERCENTAGE INCREASE.
Section 1853(c)(1)(C)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(c)(1)(C)(ii))
is amended by inserting ``(or 103 percent in the case of
2001)'' after ``102 percent''.
SEC. 603. 10-YEAR PHASE-IN OF RISK ADJUSTMENT.
Section 1853(a)(3)(C)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(a)(3)(C)(ii))
is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``and 2001'' and
inserting ``and each succeeding year through the first year
in which risk adjustment is based on data from inpatient
hospital and ambulatory settings''; and
(2) by amending subclause (II) to read as follows:
``(II) beginning after such first year, insofar as such
risk adjustment is based on data from inpatient hospital and
ambulatory settings, the methodology shall be phased in equal
increments over a 10-year period that begins with such first
year.''.
SEC. 604. TRANSITION TO REVISED MEDICARE+CHOICE PAYMENT
RATES.
(a) Announcement of Revised Medicare+Choice Payment
Rates.--Within 2 weeks after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
determine, and shall announce (in a manner intended to
provide notice to interested parties) Medicare+Choice
capitation rates under section 1853 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23) for 2001, revised in accordance with
the provisions of this Act.
(b) Reentry Into Program Permitted for Medicare+Choice
Programs in 2000.--A Medicare+Choice organization that
provided notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
before the date of the enactment of this Act that it was
terminating its contract under part C of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act or was reducing the service area of a
Medicare+Choice plan offered under such part shall be
permitted to continue participation under such part, or to
maintain the service area of such plan, for 2001 if it
provides the Secretary with the information described in
section 1854(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-24(a)(1)) within 2 weeks after the date revised rates
are announced by the Secretary under subsection (a).
(c) Revised Submission of Proposed Premiums and Related
Information.--If--
(1) a Medicare+Choice organization provided notice to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services as of July 3, 2000,
that it was renewing its contract under part C of title XVIII
of the Social Security Act for all or part of the service
area or areas served under its current contract, and
(2) any part of the service area or areas addressed in such
notice includes a payment area for which the Medicare+Choice
capitation rate under section 1853(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-23(c)) for 2001, as determined under subsection (a), is
higher than the rate previously determined for such year,
such organization shall revise its submission of the
information described in section 1854(a)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-24(a)(1)), and shall submit
such revised information to the Secretary, within 2 weeks
after the date revised rates are announced by the Secretary
under subsection (a). In making such submission, the
organization may only reduce premiums, cost-sharing, enhance
benefits, or utilize the stabilization fund described in
section 1854(f)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-24(f)(2)).
(d) Disregard of New Rate Announcement in Applying Pass-
Through for New National Coverage Determinations.--For
purposes of applying section 1852(a)(5) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(a)(5)), the announcement of
revised rates under subsection (a) shall not be treated as an
announcement under section 1853(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-23(b)).
SEC. 605. REVISION OF PAYMENT RATES FOR ESRD PATIENTS
ENROLLED IN MEDICARE+CHOICE PLANS.
(a) In General.--Section 1853(a)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
23(a)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``In establishing such rates, the Secretary shall provide for
appropriate adjustments to increase each rate to reflect the
demonstration rate (including the risk adjustment methodology
associated with such rate) of the social health maintenance
organization end-stage renal disease capitation
demonstrations (established by section 2355 of the Deficit
Reduction Act of 1984, as amended by section 13567(b) of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993), and shall compute
such rates by taking into account such factors as renal
treatment modality, age, and the underlying cause of the end-
stage renal disease.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to payments for months beginning with January
2002.
(c) Publication.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall publish for public comment a description of
the appropriate adjustments described in the last sentence of
section 1853(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-23(a)(1)(B)), as added by subsection (a). The Secretary
shall publish such adjustments in final form by not later
than July 1, 2001, so that the amendment made by subsection
(a) is implemented on a timely basis consistent with
subsection (b).
SEC. 606. PERMITTING PREMIUM REDUCTIONS AS ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS UNDER MEDICARE+CHOICE PLANS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Authorization of part b premium reductions.--Section
1854(f)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-24(f)(1)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (F);
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) Premium reductions.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), as part of
providing any additional benefits required under subparagraph
(A), a Medicare+Choice organization may elect a reduction in
its payments under section 1853(a)(1)(A) with respect to a
Medicare+Choice plan and the Secretary shall apply such
reduction to reduce the premium under section 1839 of each
enrollee in such plan as provided in section 1840(i).
``(ii) Amount of reduction.--The amount of the reduction
under clause (i) with respect to any enrollee in a
Medicare+Choice plan--
``(I) may not exceed 125 percent of the premium described
under section 1839(a)(3); and
``(II) shall apply uniformly to each enrollee of the
Medicare+Choice plan to which such reduction applies.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Adjustment of payments to medicare+choice
organizations.--Section 1853(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
23(a)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting ``reduced by the amount
of any reduction elected under section 1854(f)(1)(E) and''
after ``for that area,''.
(B) Adjustment and payment of part b premiums.--
(i) Adjustment of premiums.--Section 1839(a)(2) (42 U.S.C.
1395r(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``shall'' and all that
follows and inserting the following: ``shall be the amount
determined under paragraph (3), adjusted as required in
accordance with subsections (b), (c), and (f), and to reflect
80 percent of any reduction elected under section
1854(f)(1)(E).''.
(ii) Payment of premiums.--Section 1840 (42 U.S.C. 1395s)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) In the case of an individual enrolled in a
Medicare+Choice plan, the Secretary shall provide for
necessary adjustments of the monthly beneficiary premium to
reflect 80 percent of any reduction elected under section
1854(f)(1)(E). This premium adjustment may be provided
directly or as an adjustment to any social security, railroad
retirement, and civil service retirement benefits, to the
extent which the Secretary determines that such an adjustment
is appropriate with the concurrence of the agencies
responsible for the administration of such benefits.''.
(C) Information comparing plan premiums under part c.--
Section 1851(d)(4)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(d)(4)(B)) is
amended--
(i) by striking ``Premiums.--The'' and inserting
``Premiums.--
``(i) In general.--The''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ii) Reductions.--The reduction in part B premiums, if
any.''.
(D) Treatment of reduction for purposes of determining
government contribution under part b.--Section 1844 (42
U.S.C. 1395w) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(c) The Secretary shall determine the Government
contribution under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection
(a)(1) without regard to any premium reduction resulting from
an election under section 1854(f)(1)(E).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to years beginning with 2002.
SEC. 607. FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF RISK ADJUSTMENT FOR
CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE ENROLLEES FOR 2001.
(a) In General.--Section 1853(a)(3)(C) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
23(a)(3)(C)) is amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``Such risk adjustment''
and inserting ``Except as provided in clause (iii), such risk
adjustment''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Full implementation of risk adjustment for
congestive heart failure enrollees for 2001.--
``(I) Exemption from phase-in.--Subject to subclause (II),
the Secretary shall fully implement the risk adjustment
methodology described in clause (i) with respect to each
individual who has had a qualifying congestive heart failure
inpatient diagnosis (as determined by the Secretary under
such risk adjustment methodology) during the period beginning
on July 1, 1999, and ending on June 30, 2000, and who is
enrolled in a coordinated care plan that is the only
coordinated care plan offered on January 1, 2001, in the
service area of the individual.
``(II) Period of application.--Subclause (I) shall only
apply during the 1-year period beginning on January 1,
2001.''.
(b) Exclusion From Determination of the Budget Neutrality
Factor.--Section 1853(c)(5) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-23(c)(5)) is
amended by striking ``subsection (i)'' and inserting
``subsections (a)(3)(C)(iii) and (i)''.
SEC. 608. EXPANSION OF APPLICATION OF MEDICARE+CHOICE NEW
ENTRY BONUS.
(a) In General.--Section 1853(i)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
23(i)(1)) is amended in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)
by inserting ``, or filed notice with the Secretary as of
October 3, 2000, that they will not be offering such a plan
as of January 1, 2001'' after ``January 1, 2000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply as if included in the enactment of BBRA.
[[Page 24531]]
SEC. 609. REPORT ON INCLUSION OF CERTAIN COSTS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND MILITARY
FACILITY SERVICES IN CALCULATING
MEDICARE+CHOICE PAYMENT RATES.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall report to
Congress by not later than January 1, 2003, on a method to
phase-in the costs of military facility services furnished by
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the costs of military
facility services furnished by the Department of Defense, to
medicare-eligible beneficiaries in the calculation of an
area's Medicare+Choice capitation payment. Such report shall
include on a county-by-county basis--
(1) the actual or estimated cost of such services to
medicare-eligible beneficiaries;
(2) the change in Medicare+Choice capitation payment rates
if such costs are included in the calculation of payment
rates;
(3) one or more proposals for the implementation of payment
adjustments to Medicare+Choice plans in counties where the
payment rate has been affected due to the failure to
calculate the cost of such services to medicare-eligible
beneficiaries; and
(4) a system to ensure that when a Medicare+Choice enrollee
receives covered services through a facility of the
Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Defense
there is an appropriate payment recovery to the medicare
program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
Subtitle B--Other Medicare+Choice Reforms
SEC. 611. PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR NEW BENEFITS
COVERED DURING A CONTRACT TERM.
(a) In General.--Section 1853(c)(7) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
23(c)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) Adjustment for national coverage determinations and
legislative changes in benefits.--If the Secretary makes a
determination with respect to coverage under this title or
there is a change in benefits required to be provided under
this part that the Secretary projects will result in a
significant increase in the costs to Medicare+Choice of
providing benefits under contracts under this part (for
periods after any period described in section 1852(a)(5)),
the Secretary shall adjust appropriately the payments to such
organizations under this part. Such projection and adjustment
shall be based on an analysis by the Chief Actuary of the
Health Care Financing Administration of the actuarial costs
associated with the new benefits.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1852(a)(5) (42 U.S.C.
1395w-22(a)(5)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by inserting ``and legislative changes
in benefits'' after ``National coverage determinations'';
(2) by inserting ``or legislative change in benefits
required to be provided under this part'' after ``national
coverage determination'';
(3) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or legislative
change in benefits'' after ``such determination'';
(4) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or legislative
change'' after ``if such coverage determination''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``The projection under the previous sentence shall be based
on an analysis by the Chief Actuary of the Health Care
Financing Administration of the actuarial costs associated
with the coverage determination or legislative change in
benefits.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
are effective on the date of the enactment of this Act and
apply to national coverage determinations and legislative
changes in benefits occurring on or after such date.
SEC. 612. RESTRICTION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT NEW
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS MIDYEAR.
(a) In General.--Section 1856(b) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-26(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Prohibition of midyear implementation of significant
new regulatory requirements.--The Secretary may not
implement, other than at the beginning of a calendar year,
regulations under this section that impose new, significant
regulatory requirements on a Medicare+Choice organization or
plan.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 613. TIMELY APPROVAL OF MARKETING MATERIAL THAT FOLLOWS
MODEL MARKETING LANGUAGE.
(a) In General.--Section 1851(h) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(h)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``(or 10 days in the
case described in paragraph (5))'' after ``45 days''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Special treatment of marketing material following
model marketing language.--In the case of marketing material
of an organization that uses, without modification, proposed
model language specified by the Secretary, the period
specified in paragraph (1)(A) shall be reduced from 45 days
to 10 days.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
apply to marketing material submitted on or after January 1,
2001.
SEC. 614. AVOIDING DUPLICATIVE REGULATION.
(a) In General.--Section 1856(b)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
26(b)(3)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by inserting ``(including cost-sharing
requirements)'' after ``Benefit requirements''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) Requirements relating to marketing materials and
summaries and schedules of benefits regarding a
Medicare+Choice plan.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 615. ELECTION OF UNIFORM LOCAL COVERAGE POLICY FOR
MEDICARE+CHOICE PLAN COVERING MULTIPLE
LOCALITIES.
Section 1852(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(a)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Election of uniform coverage policy.--In the case of
a Medicare+Choice organization that offers a Medicare+Choice
plan in an area in which more than one local coverage policy
is applied with respect to different parts of the area, the
organization may elect to have the local coverage policy for
the part of the area that is most beneficial to
Medicare+Choice enrollees (as identified by the Secretary)
apply with respect to all Medicare+Choice enrollees enrolled
in the plan.''.
SEC. 616. ELIMINATING HEALTH DISPARITIES IN MEDICARE+CHOICE
PROGRAM.
(a) Quality Assurance Program Focus on Racial and Ethnic
Minorities.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 1852(e)(2)
(42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(e)(2)) are each amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Such program shall include a separate focus (with respect
to all the elements described in this subparagraph) on racial
and ethnic minorities.''.
(b) Report.--Section 1852(e) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22(e)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Report to congress.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this paragraph, and biennially thereafter,
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report regarding how
quality assurance programs conducted under this subsection
focus on racial and ethnic minorities.
``(B) Contents of report.--Each such report shall include
the following:
``(i) A description of the means by which such programs
focus on such racial and ethnic minorities.
``(ii) An evaluation of the impact of such programs on
eliminating health disparities and on improving health
outcomes, continuity and coordination of care, management of
chronic conditions, and consumer satisfaction.
``(iii) Recommendations on ways to reduce clinical outcome
disparities among racial and ethnic minorities.''.
SEC. 617. MEDICARE+CHOICE PROGRAM COMPATIBILITY WITH EMPLOYER
OR UNION GROUP HEALTH PLANS.
(a) In General.--Section 1857 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-27) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Medicare+Choice Program Compatibility With Employer
or Union Group Health Plans.--To facilitate the offering of
Medicare+Choice plans under contracts between Medicare+Choice
organizations and employers, labor organizations, or the
trustees of a fund established by 1 or more employers or
labor organizations (or combination thereof) to furnish
benefits to the entity's employees, former employees (or
combination thereof) or members or former members (or
combination thereof) of the labor organizations, the
Secretary may waive or modify requirements that hinder the
design of, the offering of, or the enrollment in such
Medicare+Choice plans.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies with respect to years beginning with 2001.
SEC. 618. SPECIAL MEDIGAP ENROLLMENT ANTIDISCRIMINATION
PROVISION FOR CERTAIN BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Disenrollment Window in Accordance With Beneficiary's
Circumstance.--Section 1882(s)(3) (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(s)(3)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), in the matter following clause
(iii), by striking ``, subject to subparagraph (E), seeks to
enroll under the policy not later than 63 days after the date
of the termination of enrollment described in such
subparagraph'' and inserting ``seeks to enroll under the
policy during the period specified in subparagraph (E)''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the
following new subparagraph:
``(E) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the time period
specified in this subparagraph is--
``(i) in the case of an individual described in
subparagraph (B)(i), the period beginning on the date the
individual receives a notice of termination or cessation of
all supplemental health benefits (or, if no such notice is
received, notice that a claim has been denied because of such
a termination or cessation) and ending on the date that is 63
days after the applicable notice;
``(ii) in the case of an individual described in clause
(ii), (iii), (v), or (vi) of subparagraph (B) whose
enrollment is terminated involuntarily, the period beginning
on the date that the individual receives a notice of
termination and ending on the date that is 63 days after the
date the applicable coverage is terminated;
``(iii) in the case of an individual described in
subparagraph (B)(iv)(I), the period beginning on the earlier
of (I) the date that the individual receives a notice of
termination, a notice of the issuer's bankruptcy or
insolvency, or other such similar notice, if any, and (II)
the date that the applicable coverage is terminated, and
ending on the date that is 63 days after the date the
coverage is terminated;
[[Page 24532]]
``(iv) in the case of an individual described in clause
(ii), (iii), (iv)(II), (iv)(III), (v), or (vi) of
subparagraph (B) who disenrolls voluntarily, the period
beginning on the date that is 60 days before the effective
date of the disenrollment and ending on the date that is 63
days after such effective date; and
``(v) in the case of an individual described in
subparagraph (B) but not described in the preceding
provisions of this subparagraph, the period beginning on the
effective date of the disenrollment and ending on the date
that is 63 days after such effective date.''.
(b) Extended Medigap Access for Interrupted Trial
Periods.--Section 1882(s)(3) (42 U.S.C. 1395ss(s)(3)), as
amended by subsection (a), is further amended by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), for purposes of this
paragraph--
``(I) in the case of an individual described in
subparagraph (B)(v) (or deemed to be so described, pursuant
to this subparagraph) whose enrollment with an organization
or provider described in subclause (II) of such subparagraph
is involuntarily terminated within the first 12 months of
such enrollment, and who, without an intervening enrollment,
enrolls with another such organization or provider, such
subsequent enrollment shall be deemed to be an initial
enrollment described in such subparagraph; and
``(II) in the case of an individual described in clause
(vi) of subparagraph (B) (or deemed to be so described,
pursuant to this subparagraph) whose enrollment with a plan
or in a program described in such clause is involuntarily
terminated within the first 12 months of such enrollment, and
who, without an intervening enrollment, enrolls in another
such plan or program, such subsequent enrollment shall be
deemed to be an initial enrollment described in such clause.
``(ii) For purposes of clauses (v) and (vi) of subparagraph
(B), no enrollment of an individual with an organization or
provider described in clause (v)(II), or with a plan or in a
program described in clause (vi), may be deemed to be an
initial enrollment under this clause after the 2-year period
beginning on the date on which the individual first enrolled
with such an organization, provider, plan, or program.''.
SEC. 619. RESTORING EFFECTIVE DATE OF ELECTIONS AND CHANGES
OF ELECTIONS OF MEDICARE+CHOICE PLANS.
(a) Open Enrollment.--Section 1851(f)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
21(f)(2)) is amended by striking ``, except that if such
election or change is made after the 10th day of any calendar
month, then the election or change shall not take effect
until the first day of the second calendar month following
the date on which the election or change is made''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to elections and changes of coverage made on or
after January 1, 2001.
SEC. 620. PERMITTING ESRD BENEFICIARIES TO ENROLL IN ANOTHER
MEDICARE+CHOICE PLAN IF THE PLAN IN WHICH THEY
ARE ENROLLED IS TERMINATED.
(a) In General.--Section 1851(a)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
21(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``except that'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``except that--
``(i) an individual who develops end-stage renal disease
while enrolled in a Medicare+Choice plan may continue to be
enrolled in that plan; and
``(ii) in the case of such an individual who is enrolled in
a Medicare+Choice plan under clause (i) (or subsequently
under this clause), if the enrollment is discontinued under
circumstances described in section 1851(e)(4)(A), then the
individual will be treated as a `Medicare+Choice eligible
individual' for purposes of electing to continue enrollment
in another Medicare+Choice plan.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply to terminations and discontinuations occurring on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Application to prior plan terminations.--Clause (ii) of
section 1851(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (as inserted
by subsection (a)) also shall apply to individuals whose
enrollment in a Medicare+Choice plan was terminated or
discontinued after December 31, 1998, and before the date of
the enactment of this Act. In applying this paragraph, such
an individual shall be treated, for purposes of part C of
title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as having
discontinued enrollment in such a plan as of the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 621. PROVIDING CHOICE FOR SKILLED NURSING FACILITY
SERVICES UNDER THE MEDICARE+CHOICE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 1852 (42 U.S.C. 1395w-22) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Return to Home Skilled Nursing Facilities for Covered
Post-Hospital Extended Care Services.--
``(1) Ensuring return to home snf.--
``(A) In general.--In providing coverage of post-hospital
extended care services, a Medicare+Choice plan shall provide
for such coverage through a home skilled nursing facility if
the following conditions are met:
``(i) Enrollee election.--The enrollee elects to receive
such coverage through such facility.
``(ii) SNF agreement.--The facility has a contract with the
Medicare+Choice organization for the provision of such
services, or the facility agrees to accept substantially
similar payment under the same terms and conditions that
apply to similarly situated skilled nursing facilities that
are under contract with the Medicare+Choice organization for
the provision of such services and through which the enrollee
would otherwise receive such services.
``(B) Manner of payment to home snf.--The organization
shall provide payment to the home skilled nursing facility
consistent with the contract or the agreement described in
subparagraph (A)(ii), as the case may be.
``(2) No less favorable coverage.--The coverage provided
under paragraph (1) (including scope of services, cost-
sharing, and other criteria of coverage) shall be no less
favorable to the enrollee than the coverage that would be
provided to the enrollee with respect to a skilled nursing
facility the post-hospital extended care services of which
are otherwise covered under the Medicare+Choice plan.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to do the following:
``(A) To require coverage through a skilled nursing
facility that is not otherwise qualified to provide benefits
under part A for medicare beneficiaries not enrolled in a
Medicare+Choice plan.
``(B) To prevent a skilled nursing facility from refusing
to accept, or imposing conditions upon the acceptance of, an
enrollee for the receipt of post-hospital extended care
services.
``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Home skilled nursing facility.--The term `home
skilled nursing facility' means, with respect to an enrollee
who is entitled to receive post-hospital extended care
services under a Medicare+Choice plan, any of the following
skilled nursing facilities:
``(i) SNF residence at time of admission.--The skilled
nursing facility in which the enrollee resided at the time of
admission to the hospital preceding the receipt of such post-
hospital extended care services.
``(ii) SNF in continuing care retirement community.--A
skilled nursing facility that is providing such services
through a continuing care retirement community (as defined in
subparagraph (B)) which provided residence to the enrollee at
the time of such admission.
``(iii) SNF residence of spouse at time of discharge.--The
skilled nursing facility in which the spouse of the enrollee
is residing at the time of discharge from such hospital.
``(B) Continuing care retirement community.--The term
`continuing care retirement community' means, with respect to
an enrollee in a Medicare+Choice plan, an arrangement under
which housing and health-related services are provided (or
arranged) through an organization for the enrollee under an
agreement that is effective for the life of the enrollee or
for a specified period.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies with respect to contracts entered into or renewed on
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) MedPAC Study.--
(1) Study.--The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission shall
conduct a study analyzing the effects of the amendment made
by subsection (a) on Medicare+Choice organizations. In
conducting such study, the Commission shall examine the
effects (if any) such amendment has had on--
(A) the scope of additional benefits provided under the
Medicare+Choice program;
(B) the administrative and other costs incurred by
Medicare+Choice organizations;
(C) the contractual relationships between such
organizations and skilled nursing facilities.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to
Congress a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1).
SEC. 622. PROVIDING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY OF MEDICARE+CHOICE
PLANS.
(a) Mandatory Review of ACR Submissions by the Chief
Actuary of the Health Care Financing Administration.--Section
1854(a)(5)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1395w-24(a)(5)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``value'' and inserting ``values''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``The Chief Actuary
of the Health Care Financing Administration shall review the
actuarial assumptions and data used by the Medicare+Choice
organization with respect to such rates, amounts, and values
so submitted to determine the appropriateness of such
assumptions and data.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies to submissions made on or after January 1, 2001.
Subtitle C--Other Managed Care Reforms
SEC. 631. 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF SOCIAL HEALTH MAINTENANCE
ORGANIZATION (SHMO) DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
Section 4018(b)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1987, as amended by section 531(a)(1) of BBRA (113 Stat.
1501A-388), is amended by striking ``18 months'' and
inserting ``30 months''.
SEC. 632. REVISED TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR EXTENSION OF
MEDICARE COMMUNITY NURSING ORGANIZATION (CNO)
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
(a) In General.--Section 532 of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-388)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the second sentence; and
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(b) Terms and Conditions.--
``(1) January through september 2000.--For the 9-month
period beginning with January 2000, any such demonstration
project shall be
[[Page 24533]]
conducted under the same terms and conditions as applied to
such demonstration during 1999.
``(2) October 2000 through december 2001.--For the 15-month
period beginning with October 2000, any such demonstration
project shall be conducted under the same terms and
conditions as applied to such demonstration during 1999,
except that the following modifications shall apply:
``(A) Basic capitation rate.--The basic capitation rate
paid for services covered under the project (other than case
management services) per enrollee per month and furnished
during--
``(i) the period beginning with October 1, 2000, and ending
with December 31, 2000, shall be determined by actuarially
adjusting the actual capitation rate paid for such services
in 1999 for inflation, utilization, and other changes to the
CNO service package, and by reducing such adjusted capitation
rate by 10 percent in the case of the demonstration sites
located in Arizona, Minnesota, and Illinois, and 15 percent
for the demonstration site located in New York; and
``(ii) 2001 shall be determined by actuarially adjusting
the capitation rate determined under clause (i) for
inflation, utilization, and other changes to the CNO service
package.
``(B) Targeted case management fee.--Effective October 1,
2000--
``(i) the case management fee per enrollee per month for--
``(I) the period described in subparagraph (A)(i) shall be
determined by actuarially adjusting the case management fee
for 1999 for inflation; and
``(II) 2001 shall be determined by actuarially adjusting
the amount determined under subclause (I) for inflation; and
``(ii) such case management fee shall be paid only for
enrollees who are classified as moderately frail or frail
pursuant to criteria established by the Secretary.
``(C) Greater uniformity in clinical features among
sites.--Each project shall implement for each site--
``(i) protocols for periodic telephonic contact with
enrollees based on--
``(I) the results of such standardized written health
assessment; and
``(II) the application of appropriate care planning
approaches;
``(ii) disease management programs for targeted diseases
(such as congestive heart failure, arthritis, diabetes, and
hypertension) that are highly prevalent in the enrolled
populations;
``(iii) systems and protocols to track enrollees through
hospitalizations, including pre-admission planning,
concurrent management during inpatient hospital stays, and
post-discharge assessment, planning, and follow-up; and
``(iv) standardized patient educational materials for
specified diseases and health conditions.
``(D) Quality improvement.--Each project shall implement at
each site once during the 15-month period--
``(i) enrollee satisfaction surveys; and
``(ii) reporting on specified quality indicators for the
enrolled population.
``(c) Evaluation.--
``(1) Preliminary report.--Not later than July 1, 2001, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to the
Committees on Ways and Means and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a
preliminary report that--
``(A) evaluates such demonstration projects for the period
beginning July 1, 1997, and ending December 31, 1999, on a
site-specific basis with respect to the impact on per
beneficiary spending, specific health utilization measures,
and enrollee satisfaction; and
``(B) includes a similar evaluation of such projects for
the portion of the extension period that occurs after
September 30, 2000.
``(2) Final report.--The Secretary shall submit a final
report to such Committees on such demonstration projects not
later than July 1, 2002. Such report shall include the same
elements as the preliminary report required by paragraph (1),
but for the period after December 31, 1999.
``(3) Methodology for spending comparisons.--Any evaluation
of the impact of the demonstration projects on per
beneficiary spending included in such reports shall include a
comparison of--
``(A) data for all individuals who--
``(i) were enrolled in such demonstration projects as of
the first day of the period under evaluation; and
``(ii) were enrolled for a minimum of 6 months thereafter;
with
``(B) data for a matched sample of individuals who are
enrolled under part B of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act and are not enrolled in such a project, or in a
Medicare+Choice plan under part C of such title, a plan
offered by an eligible organization under section 1876 of
such Act, or a health care prepayment plan under section
1833(a)(1)(A) of such Act.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of section
532 of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-388).
SEC. 633. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE MUNICIPAL HEALTH SERVICES
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
Section 9215(a) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-1 note), as
amended by section 6135 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1989, section 13557 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993, section 4017 of BBA, and section
534 of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-390), is amended by striking
``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2004''.
SEC. 634. SERVICE AREA EXPANSION FOR MEDICARE COST CONTRACTS
DURING TRANSITION PERIOD.
Section 1876(h)(5) (42 U.S.C. 1395mm(h)(5)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (A), the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall
approve an application for a modification to a reasonable
cost contract under this section in order to expand the
service area of such contract if--
``(i) such application is submitted to the Secretary on or
before September 1, 2003; and
``(ii) the Secretary determines that the organization with
the contract continues to meet the requirements applicable to
such organizations and contracts under this section.''.
TITLE VII--MEDICAID
SEC. 701. DSH PAYMENTS.
(a) Modifications to DSH Allotments.--
(1) Increased allotments for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.--
(A) In general.--Section 1923(f) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f))) is
amended--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``The DSH allotment'' and
inserting ``Subject to paragraph (4), the DSH allotment'';
(ii) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Special rule for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the DSH
allotment for any State for--
``(i) fiscal year 2001, shall be the DSH allotment
determined under paragraph (2) for fiscal year 2000
increased, subject to subparagraph (B) and paragraph (5), by
the percentage change in the consumer price index for all
urban consumers (all items; U.S. city average) for fiscal
year 2000; and
``(ii) fiscal year 2002, shall be the DSH allotment
determined under clause (i) increased, subject to
subparagraph (B) and paragraph (5), by the percentage change
in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (all
items; U.S. city average) for fiscal year 2001.
``(B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) shall
apply to subparagraph (A) of this paragraph in the same
manner as that subparagraph (B) applies to paragraph (3)(A).
``(C) No application to allotments after fiscal year
2002.--The DSH allotment for any State for fiscal year 2003
or any succeeding fiscal year shall be determined under
paragraph (3) without regard to the DSH allotments determined
under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.''.
(2) Special rule for medicaid dsh allotment for extremely
low dsh states.--
(A) In general.--Section 1923(f) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f)), as
amended by paragraph (1), is amended by inserting after
paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
``(5) Special rule for extremely low dsh states.--In the
case of a State in which the total expenditures under the
State plan (including Federal and State shares) for
disproportionate share hospital adjustments under this
section for fiscal year 1999, as reported to the
Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration as
of August 31, 2000, is greater than 0 but less than 1 percent
of the State's total amount of expenditures under the State
plan for medical assistance during the fiscal year, the DSH
allotment for fiscal year 2001 shall be increased to 1
percent of the State's total amount of expenditures under
such plan for such assistance during such fiscal year. In
subsequent fiscal years, such increased allotment is subject
to an increase for inflation as provided in paragraph
(3)(A).''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 1923(f)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C.
1396r-4(f)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting ``and paragraph
(5)'' after ``subparagraph (B)''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1)
and (2) take effect on the date the final regulation required
under section 705(a) (relating to the application of an
aggregate upper payment limit test for State medicaid
spending for inpatient hospital services, outpatient hospital
services, nursing facility services, intermediate care
facility services for the mentally retarded, and clinic
services provided by government facilities that are not
State-owned or operated facilities) is published in the
Federal Register.
(b) Assuring Identification of Medicaid Managed Care
Patients.--
(1) In general.--Section 1932 (42 U.S.C. 1396u-2) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Identification of Patients for Purposes of Making DSH
Payments.--Each contract with a managed care entity under
section 1903(m) or under section 1905(t)(3) shall require the
entity either--
``(1) to report to the State information necessary to
determine the hospital services provided under the contract
(and the identity of hospitals providing such services) for
purposes of applying sections 1886(d)(5)(F) and 1923; or
``(2) to include a sponsorship code in the identification
card issued to individuals covered under this title in order
that a hospital may identify a patient as being entitled to
benefits under this title.''.
(2) Clarification of counting managed care medicaid
patients.--Section 1923 (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(2)(D), by inserting after ``the
proportion of low-income and medicaid patients'' the
following: ``(including such patients
[[Page 24534]]
who receive benefits through a managed care entity)'';
(B) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting after ``a State plan
approved under this title in a period'' the following:
``(regardless of whether such patients receive medical
assistance on a fee-for-service basis or through a managed
care entity)''; and
(C) in subsection (b)(3)(A)(i), by inserting after ``under
a State plan under this title'' the following: ``(regardless
of whether the services were furnished on a fee-for-service
basis or through a managed care entity)''.
(3) Effective dates.--
(A) The amendment made by paragraph (1) applies to
contracts as of January 1, 2001.
(B) The amendments made by paragraph (2) apply to payments
made on or after January 1, 2001.
(c) Application of Medicaid DSH Transition Rule to Public
Hospitals in All States.--
(1) In general.--During the period described in paragraph
(3), with respect to a State, section 4721(e) of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 514), as
amended by section 607 of BBRA (113 Stat. 1501A-321) shall be
applied as though--
(A) ``September 30, 2002'' were substituted for ``July 1,
1997'' each place it appears;
(B) ``hospitals owned or operated by a State (as defined
for purposes of title XIX of such Act), or by an
instrumentality or a unit of government within a State (as so
defined)'' were substituted for ``the State of California'';
(C) paragraph (3) were redesignated as paragraph (4);
(D) ``and'' were omitted from the end of paragraph (2); and
(E) the following new paragraph were inserted after
paragraph (2):
``(3) `(as defined in subparagraph (B) but without regard
to clause (ii) of that subparagraph and subject to subsection
(d))' were substituted for `(as defined in subparagraph (B))'
in subparagraph (A) of such section; and''.
(2) Special rule.--With respect to California, section
4721(e) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-
33; 111 Stat. 514) shall be applied without regard to
paragraph (1).
(3) Period described.--The period described in this
paragraph is the period that begins, with respect to a State,
on the first day of the first State fiscal year that begins
after September 30, 2002, and ends on the last day of the
succeeding State fiscal year.
(4) Application to waivers.--With respect to a State
operating under a waiver of the requirements of title XIX of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) under
section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315), the amount by
which any payment adjustment made by the State under title
XIX of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), after the
application of section 4721(e) of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 under paragraph (1) to such State, exceeds the costs of
furnishing hospital services provided by hospitals described
in such section shall be fully reflected as an increase in
the baseline expenditure limit for such waiver.
(d) Assistance for Certain Public Hospitals.--
(1) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2002,
notwithstanding section 1923(f) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f)) and subject to paragraph (3), with
respect to a State, payment adjustments made under title XIX
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) to a
hospital described in paragraph (2) shall be made without
regard to the DSH allotment limitation for the State
determined under section 1923(f) of that Act (42 U.S.C.
1396r-4(f)).
(2) Hospital described.--A hospital is described in this
paragraph if the hospital--
(A) is owned or operated by a State (as defined for
purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act), or by an
instrumentality or a unit of government within a State (as so
defined);
(B) as of October 1, 2000--
(i) is in existence and operating as a hospital described
in subparagraph (A); and
(ii) is not receiving disproportionate share hospital
payments from the State in which it is located under title
XIX of such Act; and
(C) has a low-income utilization rate (as defined in
section 1923(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396r-4(b)(3))) in excess of 65 percent.
(3) Limitation on expenditures.--
(A) In general.--With respect to any fiscal year, the
aggregate amount of Federal financial participation that may
be provided for payment adjustments described in paragraph
(1) for that fiscal year for all States may not exceed the
amount described in subparagraph (B) for the fiscal year.
(B) Amount described.--The amount described in this
subparagraph for a fiscal year is as follows:
(i) For fiscal year 2002, $15,000,000.
(ii) For fiscal year 2003, $176,000,000.
(iii) For fiscal year 2004, $269,000,000.
(iv) For fiscal year 2005, $330,000,000.
(v) For fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year thereafter,
$375,000,000.
(e) DSH Payment Accountability Standards.--Not later than
September 30, 2002, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall implement accountability standards to ensure
that Federal funds provided with respect to disproportionate
share hospital adjustments made under section 1923 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4) are used to reimburse
States and hospitals eligible for such payment adjustments
for providing uncompensated health care to low-income
patients and are otherwise made in accordance with the
requirements of section 1923 of that Act.
SEC. 702. NEW PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR FEDERALLY-
QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS AND RURAL HEALTH
CLINICS.
(a) In General.--Section 1902(a) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (13)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following new
paragraph:
``(15) provide for payment for services described in clause
(B) or (C) of section 1905(a)(2) under the plan in accordance
with subsection (aa);''.
(b) New Prospective Payment System.--Section 1902 (42
U.S.C. 1396a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(aa) Payment for Services Provided by Federally-Qualified
Health Centers and Rural Health Clinics.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2001 and each
succeeding fiscal year, the State plan shall provide for
payment for services described in section 1905(a)(2)(C)
furnished by a Federally-qualified health center and services
described in section 1905(a)(2)(B) furnished by a rural
health clinic in accordance with the provisions of this
subsection.
``(2) Fiscal year 2001.--Subject to paragraph (4), for
services furnished during fiscal year 2001, the State plan
shall provide for payment for such services in an amount
(calculated on a per visit basis) that is equal to 100
percent of the average of the costs of the center or clinic
of furnishing such services during fiscal years 1999 and 2000
which are reasonable and related to the cost of furnishing
such services, or based on such other tests of reasonableness
as the Secretary prescribes in regulations under section
1833(a)(3), or, in the case of services to which such
regulations do not apply, the same methodology used under
section 1833(a)(3), adjusted to take into account any
increase or decrease in the scope of such services furnished
by the center or clinic during fiscal year 2001.
``(3) Fiscal year 2002 and succeeding fiscal years.--
Subject to paragraph (4), for services furnished during
fiscal year 2002 or a succeeding fiscal year, the State plan
shall provide for payment for such services in an amount
(calculated on a per visit basis) that is equal to the amount
calculated for such services under this subsection for the
preceding fiscal year--
``(A) increased by the percentage increase in the MEI (as
defined in section 1842(i)(3)) applicable to primary care
services (as defined in section 1842(i)(4)) for that fiscal
year; and
``(B) adjusted to take into account any increase or
decrease in the scope of such services furnished by the
center or clinic during that fiscal year.
``(4) Establishment of initial year payment amount for new
centers or clinics.--In any case in which an entity first
qualifies as a Federally-qualified health center or rural
health clinic after fiscal year 2000, the State plan shall
provide for payment for services described in section
1905(a)(2)(C) furnished by the center or services described
in section 1905(a)(2)(B) furnished by the clinic in the first
fiscal year in which the center or clinic so qualifies in an
amount (calculated on a per visit basis) that is equal to 100
percent of the costs of furnishing such services during such
fiscal year based on the rates established under this
subsection for the fiscal year for other such centers or
clinics located in the same or adjacent area with a similar
case load or, in the absence of such a center or clinic, in
accordance with the regulations and methodology referred to
in paragraph (2) or based on such other tests of
reasonableness as the Secretary may specify. For each fiscal
year following the fiscal year in which the entity first
qualifies as a Federally-qualified health center or rural
health clinic, the State plan shall provide for the payment
amount to be calculated in accordance with paragraph (3).
``(5) Administration in the case of managed care.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of services furnished by a
Federally-qualified health center or rural health clinic
pursuant to a contract between the center or clinic and a
managed care entity (as defined in section 1932(a)(1)(B)),
the State plan shall provide for payment to the center or
clinic by the State of a supplemental payment equal to the
amount (if any) by which the amount determined under
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection exceeds the
amount of the payments provided under the contract.
``(B) Payment schedule.--The supplemental payment required
under subparagraph (A) shall be made pursuant to a payment
schedule agreed to by the State and the Federally-qualified
health center or rural health clinic, but in no case less
frequently than every 4 months.
``(6) Alternative payment methodologies.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this section, the State plan may
provide for payment in any fiscal year to a Federally-
qualified health center for services described in section
1905(a)(2)(C) or to a rural health clinic for services
described in section 1905(a)(2)(B) in an amount which is
determined under an alternative payment methodology that--
``(A) is agreed to by the State and the center or clinic;
and
``(B) results in payment to the center or clinic of an
amount which is at least equal to the amount otherwise
required to be paid to the center or clinic under this
section.''.
[[Page 24535]]
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 4712 of the BBA (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat.
508) is amended by striking subsection (c).
(2) Section 1915(b) (42 U.S.C. 1396n(b)) is amended by
striking ``1902(a)(13)(C)'' and inserting ``1902(a)(15),
1902(aa),''.
(d) GAO Study of Future Rebasing.--The Comptroller General
of the United States shall provide for a study on the need
for, and how to, rebase or refine costs for making payment
under the medicaid program for services provided by
Federally-qualified health centers and rural health clinics
(as provided under the amendments made by this section). The
Comptroller General shall provide for submittal of a report
on such study to Congress by not later than 4 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2000, and apply to services
furnished on or after such date.
SEC. 703. STREAMLINED APPROVAL OF CONTINUED STATE-WIDE
SECTION 1115 MEDICAID WAIVERS.
(a) In General.--Section 1115 (42 U.S.C. 1315) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) An application by the chief executive officer of a
State for an extension of a waiver project the State is
operating under an extension under subsection (e) (in this
subsection referred to as the `waiver project') shall be
submitted and approved or disapproved in accordance with the
following:
``(1) The application for an extension of the waiver
project shall be submitted to the Secretary at least 120 days
prior to the expiration of the current period of the waiver
project.
``(2) Not later than 45 days after the date such
application is received by the Secretary, the Secretary shall
notify the State if the Secretary intends to review the terms
and conditions of the waiver project. A failure to provide
such notification shall be deemed to be an approval of the
application.
``(3) Not later than 45 days after the date a notification
is made in accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary shall
inform the State of proposed changes in the terms and
conditions of the waiver project. A failure to provide such
information shall be deemed to be an approval of the
application.
``(4) During the 30-day period that begins on the date
information described in paragraph (3) is provided to a
State, the Secretary shall negotiate revised terms and
conditions of the waiver project with the State.
``(5)(A) Not later than 120 days after the date an
application for an extension of the waiver project is
submitted to the Secretary (or such later date agreed to by
the chief executive officer of the State), the Secretary
shall--
``(i) approve the application subject to such modifications
in the terms and conditions--
``(I) as have been agreed to by the Secretary and the
State; or
``(II) in the absence of such agreement, as are determined
by the Secretary to be reasonable, consistent with the
overall objectives of the waiver project, and not in
violation of applicable law; or
``(ii) disapprove the application.
``(B) A failure by the Secretary to approve or disapprove
an application submitted under this subsection in accordance
with the requirements of subparagraph (A) shall be deemed to
be an approval of the application subject to such
modifications in the terms and conditions as have been agreed
to (if any) by the Secretary and the State.
``(6) An approval of an application for an extension of a
waiver project under this subsection shall be for a period
not to exceed 3 years.
``(7) An extension of a waiver project under this
subsection shall be subject to the final reporting and
evaluation requirements of paragraphs (4) and (5) of
subsection (e) (taking into account the extension under this
subsection with respect to any timing requirements imposed
under those paragraphs).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
applies to requests for extensions of demonstration projects
pending or submitted on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 704. MEDICAID COUNTY-ORGANIZED HEALTH SYSTEMS.
(a) In General.--Section 9517(c)(3)(C) of the Comprehensive
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 is amended by
striking ``10 percent'' and inserting ``14 percent''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 705. DEADLINE FOR ISSUANCE OF FINAL REGULATION RELATING
TO MEDICAID UPPER PAYMENT LIMITS.
(a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 2000, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section
referred to as the ``Secretary''), notwithstanding any
requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act under
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, or any other
provision of law, shall issue under sections 447.272,
447.304, and 447.321 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations
(and any other section of part 447 of title 42, Code of
Federal Regulations that the Secretary determines is
appropriate), a final regulation based on the proposed rule
announced on October 5, 2000, that--
(1) modifies the upper payment limit test applied to State
medicaid spending for inpatient hospital services, outpatient
hospital services, nursing facility services, intermediate
care facility services for the mentally retarded, and clinic
services by applying an aggregate upper payment limit to
payments made to government facilities that are not State-
owned or operated facilities; and
(2) provides for a transition period in accordance with
subsection (b).
(b) Transition Period.--
(1) In general.--The final regulation required under
subsection (a) shall provide that, with respect to a State
described in paragraph (3), the State shall be considered to
be in compliance with the final regulation required under
subsection (a) so long as, for each State fiscal year during
the period described in paragraph (4), the State reduces
payments under a State medicaid plan payment provision or
methodology described in paragraph (3), or reduces the actual
dollar payment levels described in paragraph (3)(B), so that
the amount of the payments that would otherwise have been
made under such provision, methodology, or payment levels by
the State for any State fiscal year during such period is
reduced by 15 percent in the first such State fiscal year,
and by an additional 15 percent in each of next 5 State
fiscal years.
(2) Requirement.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the final
regulation required under subsection (a) shall provide that,
for any period (or portion of a period) that occurs on or
after October 1, 2008, medicaid payments made by a State
described in paragraph (3) shall comply with such final
regulation.
(3) State described.--A State described in this paragraph
is a State with a State medicaid plan payment provision or
methodology which--
(A) was approved, deemed to have been approved, or was in
effect on or before October 1, 1992 (including any subsequent
amendments or successor provisions or methodologies and
whether or not a State plan amendment was made to carry out
such provision or methodology after such date) or under which
claims for Federal financial participation were filed and
paid on or before such date; and
(B) provides for payments that are in excess of the upper
payment limit test established under the final regulation
required under subsection (a) (or which would be noncompliant
with such final regulation if the actual dollar payment
levels made under the payment provision or methodology in the
State fiscal year which begins during 1999 were continued).
(4) Period described.--The period described in this
paragraph is the period that begins on the first State fiscal
year that begins after September 30, 2002, and ends on
September 30, 2008.
SEC. 706. ALASKA FMAP.
Notwithstanding the first sentence of section 1905(b) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)), only with
respect to each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005, for
purposes of titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act,
the State percentage used to determine the Federal medical
assistance percentage for Alaska shall be that percentage
which bears the same ratio to 45 percent as the square of the
adjusted per capita income of Alaska (determined by dividing
the State's 3-year average per capita income by 1.05) bears
to the square of the per capita income of the 50 States.
TITLE VIII--STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM
SEC. 801. SPECIAL RULE FOR REDISTRIBUTION AND AVAILABILITY OF
UNUSED FISCAL YEAR 1998 AND 1999 SCHIP
ALLOTMENTS.
(a) Change in Rules for Redistribution and Retention of
Unused SCHIP Allotments for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999.--
Section 2104 (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(g) Rule for Redistribution and Extended Availability of
Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 Allotments.--
``(1) Amount redistributed.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a State that expends all
of its allotment under subsection (b) or (c) for fiscal year
1998 by the end of fiscal year 2000, or for fiscal year 1999
by the end of fiscal year 2001, the Secretary shall
redistribute to the State under subsection (f) (from the
fiscal year 1998 or 1999 allotments of other States,
respectively, as determined by the application of paragraphs
(2) and (3) with respect to the respective fiscal year)) the
following amount:
``(i) State.--In the case of 1 of the 50 States or the
District of Columbia, with respect to--
``(I) the fiscal year 1998 allotment, the amount by which
the State's expenditures under this title in fiscal years
1998, 1999, and 2000 exceed the State's allotment for fiscal
year 1998 under subsection (b); or
``(II) the fiscal year 1999 allotment, the amount by which
the State's expenditures under this title in fiscal years
1999, 2000, and 2001 exceed the State's allotment for fiscal
year 1999 under subsection (b).
``(ii) Territory.--In the case of a commonwealth or
territory described in subsection (c)(3), an amount that
bears the same ratio to 1.05 percent of the total amount
described in paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I) as the ratio of the
commonwealth's or territory's fiscal year 1998 or 1999
allotment under subsection (c) (as the case may be) bears to
the total of all such allotments for such fiscal year under
such subsection.
``(B) Expenditure rules.--An amount redistributed to a
State under this paragraph with respect to fiscal year 1998
or 1999--
``(i) shall not be included in the determination of the
State's allotment for any fiscal year under this section;
``(ii) notwithstanding subsection (e), shall remain
available for expenditure by the State through the end of
fiscal year 2002; and
[[Page 24536]]
``(iii) shall be counted as being expended with respect to
a fiscal year allotment in accordance with applicable
regulations of the Secretary.
``(2) Extension of availability of portion of unexpended
fiscal years 1998 and 1999 allotments.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (e):
``(i) Fiscal year 1998 allotment.--Of the amounts allotted
to a State pursuant to this section for fiscal year 1998 that
were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal year
2000, the amount specified in subparagraph (B) for fiscal
year 1998 for such State shall remain available for
expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 2002.
``(ii) Fiscal year 1999 allotment.--Of the amounts allotted
to a State pursuant to this subsection for fiscal year 1999
that were not expended by the State by the end of fiscal year
2001, the amount specified in subparagraph (B) for fiscal
year 1999 for such State shall remain available for
expenditure by the State through the end of fiscal year 2002.
``(B) Amount remaining available for expenditure.--The
amount specified in this subparagraph for a State for a
fiscal year is equal to--
``(i) the amount by which (I) the total amount available
for redistribution under subsection (f) from the allotments
for that fiscal year, exceeds (II) the total amounts
redistributed under paragraph (1) for that fiscal year;
multiplied by
``(ii) the ratio of the amount of such State's unexpended
allotment for that fiscal year to the total amount described
in clause (i)(I) for that fiscal year.
``(C) Use of up to 10 percent of retained 1998 allotments
for outreach activities.--Notwithstanding section
2105(c)(2)(A), with respect to any State described in
subparagraph (A)(i), the State may use up to 10 percent of
the amount specified in subparagraph (B) for fiscal year 1998
for expenditures for outreach activities approved by the
Secretary.
``(3) Determination of amounts.--For purposes of
calculating the amounts described in paragraphs (1) and (2)
relating to the allotment for fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year
1999, the Secretary shall use the amounts reported by the
States not later than November 30, 2000, or November 30,
2001, respectively, on HCFA Form 64 or HCFA Form 21, as
approved by the Secretary.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
4901 of BBA (111 Stat. 552).
SEC. 802. AUTHORITY TO PAY MEDICAID EXPANSION SCHIP COSTS
FROM TITLE XXI APPROPRIATION.
(a) Authority To Pay Medicaid Expansion SCHIP Costs From
Title XXI Appropriation.--Section 2105(a) (42 U.S.C.
1397ee(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) of
paragraph (2) as clauses (i) through (iv), respectively, and
indenting appropriately;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (1) as subparagraph (C), and
indenting appropriately;
(3) by redesignating paragraph (2) as subparagraph (D), and
indenting appropriately;
(4) by striking ``(a) In General.--'' and the remainder of
the text that precedes subparagraph (C), as so redesignated,
and inserting the following:
``(a) Payments.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the succeeding provisions of
this section, the Secretary shall pay to each State with a
plan approved under this title, from its allotment under
section 2104, an amount for each quarter equal to the
enhanced FMAP (or, in the case of expenditures described in
subparagraph (B), the Federal medical assistance percentage
(as defined in the first sentence of section 1905(b))) of
expenditures in the quarter--
``(A) for child health assistance under the plan for
targeted low-income children in the form of providing medical
assistance for which payment is made on the basis of an
enhanced FMAP under the fourth sentence of section 1905(b);
``(B) for the provision of medical assistance on behalf of
a child during a presumptive eligibility period under section
1920A;''; and
(5) by adding after subparagraph (D), as so redesignated,
the following new paragraph:
``(2) Order of payments.--Payments under paragraph (1) from
a State's allotment shall be made in the following order:
``(A) First, for expenditures for items described in
paragraph (1)(A).
``(B) Second, for expenditures for items described in
paragraph (1)(B).
``(C) Third, for expenditures for items described in
paragraph (1)(C).
``(D) Fourth, for expenditures for items described in
paragraph (1)(D).''.
(b) Elimination of Requirement To Reduce Title XXI
Allotment by Medicaid Expansion SCHIP Costs.--Section 2104
(42 U.S.C. 1397dd) is amended by striking subsection (d).
(c) Authority To Transfer Title XXI Appropriations to Title
XIX Appropriation Account as Reimbursement for Medicaid
Expenditures for Medicaid Expansion SCHIP Services.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts
appropriated under title XXI and allotted to a State pursuant
to subsection (b) or (c) of section 2104 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) for fiscal years 1998 through
2000 (including any amounts that, but for this provision,
would be considered to have expired) and not expended in
providing child health assistance or related services for
which payment may be made pursuant to subparagraph (C) or (D)
of section 2105(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(a)(1))
(as amended by subsection (a)), shall be available to
reimburse the Grants to States for Medicaid account in an
amount equal to the total payments made to such State under
section 1903(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)) for
expenditures in such years for medical assistance described
in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 2105(a)(1) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(a)(1) (as so amended).
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1905(b) (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended in the
fourth sentence by striking ``the State's allotment under
section 2104 (not taking into account reductions under
section 2104(d)(2)) for the fiscal year reduced by the amount
of any payments made under section 2105 to the State from
such allotment for such fiscal year'' and inserting ``the
State's available allotment under section 2104''.
(2) Section 1905(u)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1396d(u)(1)(B)) is
amended by striking ``and section 2104(d)''.
(3) Section 2104 (42 U.S.C. 1397dd), as amended by
subsection (b), is further amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``and subsection
(d)''; and
(B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``subject to
subsection (d),''.
(4) Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking all that follows
``Except as provided in this paragraph,'' and inserting ``the
amount of payment that may be made under subsection (a) for a
fiscal year for expenditures for items described in paragraph
(1)(D) of such subsection shall not exceed 10 percent of the
total amount of expenditures for which payment is made under
subparagraphs (A), (C), and (D) of paragraph (1) of such
subsection.'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``described in
subsection (a)(2)'' and inserting ``described in subsection
(a)(1)(D)''; and
(C) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ``Except as otherwise
provided by law,'' and inserting ``Except as provided in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1) or any other
provision of law,''.
(5) Section 2110(a) (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(a)) is amended by
striking ``section 2105(a)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``section
2105(a)(1)(D)(i)''.
(e) Technical Amendment.--Section 2105(d)(2)(B)(ii) (42
U.S.C. 1397ee(d)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ``enhanced
FMAP under section 1905(u)'' and inserting ``enhanced FMAP
under the fourth sentence of section 1905(b)''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of section
4901 of the BBA (111 Stat. 552).
TITLE IX--OTHER PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--PACE Program
SEC. 901. EXTENSION OF TRANSITION FOR CURRENT WAIVERS.
Section 4803(d)(2) of BBA is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``24 months'' and
inserting ``36 months'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the initial
effective date of regulations described in subsection (a)''
and inserting ``July 1, 2000''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``3 years'' and
inserting ``4 years''.
SEC. 902. CONTINUING OF CERTAIN OPERATING ARRANGEMENTS
PERMITTED.
(a) In General.--Section 1894(f)(2) (42 U.S.C.
1395eee(f)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) Continuation of modifications or waivers of
operational requirements under demonstration status.--If a
PACE program operating under demonstration authority has
contractual or other operating arrangements which are not
otherwise recognized in regulation and which were in effect
on July 1, 2000, the Secretary (in close consultation with,
and with the concurrence of, the State administering agency)
shall permit any such program to continue such arrangements
so long as such arrangements are found by the Secretary and
the State to be reasonably consistent with the objectives of
the PACE program.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1934(f)(2) (42 U.S.C.
1396u-4(f)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) Continuation of modifications or waivers of
operational requirements under demonstration status.--If a
PACE program operating under demonstration authority has
contractual or other operating arrangements which are not
otherwise recognized in regulation and which were in effect
on July 1 2000, the Secretary (in close consultation with,
and with the concurrence of, the State administering agency)
shall permit any such program to continue such arrangements
so long as such arrangements are found by the Secretary and
the State to be reasonably consistent with the objectives of
the PACE program.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective as included in the enactment of BBA.
SEC. 903. FLEXIBILITY IN EXERCISING WAIVER AUTHORITY.
In applying sections 1894(f)(2)(B) and 1934(f)(2)(B) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395eee(f)(2)(B), 1396u-
4(f)(2)(B)), the Secretary of Health and Human Services--
(1) shall approve or deny a request for a modification or a
waiver of provisions of the PACE protocol not later than 90
days after the date the Secretary receives the request; and
[[Page 24537]]
(2) may exercise authority to modify or waive such
provisions in a manner that responds promptly to the needs of
PACE programs relating to areas of employment and the use of
community-based primary care physicians.
Subtitle B--Outreach to Eligible Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries
SEC. 911. OUTREACH ON AVAILABILITY OF MEDICARE COST-SHARING
ASSISTANCE TO ELIGIBLE LOW-INCOME MEDICARE
BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Outreach.--
(1) In general.--Title XI (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 1143 the following new
section:
``outreach efforts to increase awareness of the availability of
medicare cost-sharing
``Sec. 1144. (a) Outreach.--
``(1) In general.--The Commissioner of Social Security (in
this section referred to as the `Commissioner') shall conduct
outreach efforts to--
``(A) identify individuals entitled to benefits under the
medicare program under title XVIII who may be eligible for
medical assistance for payment of the cost of medicare cost-
sharing under the medicaid program pursuant to sections
1902(a)(10)(E) and 1933; and
``(B) notify such individuals of the availability of such
medical assistance under such sections.
``(2) Content of notice.--Any notice furnished under
paragraph (1) shall state that eligibility for medicare cost-
sharing assistance under such sections is conditioned upon--
``(A) the individual providing to the State information
about income and resources (in the case of an individual
residing in a State that imposes an assets test for such
eligibility); and
``(B) meeting the applicable eligibility criteria.
``(b) Coordination With States.--
``(1) In general.--In conducting the outreach efforts under
this section, the Commissioner shall--
``(A) furnish the agency of each State responsible for the
administration of the medicaid program and any other
appropriate State agency with information consisting of the
name and address of individuals residing in the State that
the Commissioner determines may be eligible for medical
assistance for payment of the cost of medicare cost-sharing
under the medicaid program pursuant to sections
1902(a)(10)(E) and 1933; and
``(B) update any such information not less frequently than
once per year.
``(2) Information in periodic updates.--The periodic
updates described in paragraph (1)(B) shall include
information on individuals who are or may be eligible for the
medical assistance described in paragraph (1)(A) because such
individuals have experienced reductions in benefits under
title II.''.
(2) Amendment to title xix.--Section 1905(p) (42 U.S.C.
1396d(p)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) For provisions relating to outreach efforts to
increase awareness of the availability of medicare cost-
sharing, see section 1144.''.
(b) GAO Report.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the impact of section 1144 of
the Social Security Act (as added by subsection (a)(1)) on
the enrollment of individuals for medicare cost-sharing under
the medicaid program. Not later than 18 months after the date
that the Commissioner of Social Security first conducts
outreach under section 1144 of such Act, the Comptroller
General shall submit to Congress a report on such study. The
report shall include such recommendations for legislative
changes as the Comptroller General deems appropriate.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
shall take effect one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
Subtitle C--Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
SEC. 921. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK
GRANT.
(a) In General.--Section 501(a) (42 U.S.C. 701(a)) is
amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``$705,000,000 for fiscal year 1994'' and inserting
``$850,000,000 for fiscal year 2001''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect on October 1, 2000.
Subtitle D--Diabetes
SEC. 931. INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR SPECIAL DIABETES
PROGRAMS FOR TYPE I DIABETES AND INDIANS.
(a) Special Diabetes Programs for Type I Diabetes.--Section
330B(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-
2(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Transferred funds.--Notwithstanding''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Appropriations.--For the purpose of making grants
under this section, there is appropriated, out of any funds
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
``(A) $70,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002
(which shall be combined with amounts transferred under
paragraph (1) for each such fiscal years); and
``(B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.
(b) Special Diabetes Programs for Indians.--Section 330C(c)
of such Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-3(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Transferred funds.--Notwithstanding''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Appropriations.--For the purpose of making grants
under this section, there is appropriated, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
``(A) $70,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002
(which shall be combined with amounts transferred under
paragraph (1) for each such fiscal years); and
``(B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.
(c) Extension of Final Report on Grant Programs.--Section
4923(b)(2) of BBA is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2003''.
SEC. 932. APPROPRIATIONS FOR RICKY RAY HEMOPHILIA RELIEF
FUND.
Section 101(e) of the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act
of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 300c-22 note) is amended by adding at the
end the following: ``There is appropriated to the Fund
$475,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available until
expended.''.
Following is explanatory language for H.R. 5543 as
introduced on October 25, 2000.
STATEMENT OF MANAGERS FOR THE MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND SCHIP BENEFITS
IMPROVEMENT AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2000
Title I--Medicare Beneficiary Improvements
Subtilte A--Improved Preventive Benefits
Section 101. Coverage of biennial screening pap smear and
pelvic exams
The provision modifies current law to provide Medicare
coverage for biennial screening pap smears and pelvic exams,
effective July 1, 2001.
Section 102. Coverage of screening for glaucoma
The provision would add Medicare coverage for annual
glaucoma screenings, beginning January 1, 2002, for persons
determined to be at high risk for glaucoma, individuals with
a family history of glaucoma, and individuals with diabetes.
The service would have to be furnished by or under the
supervision of an optometrist or ophthalmologist who is
legally authorized to perform such services in the state
where the services are furnished.
Section 103. Coverage of screening colonoscopy for average
risk individuals
The provision would authorize coverage for screening
colonoscopies, beginning July 1, 2001, for all individuals,
not just those at high risk. For persons not at high risk,
payments could not be made for such procedures if performed
within 10 years of a previous screening colonoscopy or within
4 years of a screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.
Section 104. Modernization of screening mammography benefit
Beginning in 2002, the provision would eliminate the
statutorily prescribed payment rate for mammography payments
and specify that the services are to be paid under the
physician fee schedule. The provision would specify two new
payment rates for mammographies that utilize advanced new
technology for the period April 1, 2001 to December 21, 2001.
Payment for technologies that directly take digital images
would equal 150% of what would otherwise be paid for a
bilateral diagnostic mammography. For technologies that
convert standard film images to digital form, an additional
payment of fifteen dollars would be authorized. The Secretary
would be required to determine whether a new code is required
for tests furnished after 2001.
Section 105. Coverage of medical nutrition therapy services
for beneficiaries with diabetes or a renal disease
The provision would establish, effective January 1, 2002,
Medicare coverage for medical nutrition therapy services for
beneficiaries who have diabetes or a renal disease. Medical
nutrition therapy services would be defined as nutritional
diagnostic, therapy and counseling services for the purpose
of disease management which are furnished by a registered
dietician or nutrition professional, pursuant to a referral
by a physician. The provision would specify that the amount
paid for medical nutrition therapy services would equal the
lesser of the actual charge for the service or 85% of the
amount that would be paid under the physician fee schedule if
such services were provided by a physician. Assignment would
be required for all claims. The Secretary would be required
to submit a report to Congress that contains an evaluation of
the effectiveness of services furnished under this provision.
Subtitle B--Other Beneficiary Improvements
Section 111. Acceleration of reduction of beneficiary
copayment for hospital outpatient hospital outpatient
department services
Effective January 1, 2001, the provision would modify
current law by limiting the amount of a beneficiary's
copayment for a procedure in a hospital outpatient department
to the hospital inpatient deductible applicable in that year.
In addition, starting in January, 2001, the provision would
require the Secretary of HHS to reduce the effective
copayment rate for outpatient services to a maximum rate of
60% and then gradually reduce the effective coinsurance rate
in 5 percentage point intervals from 2002 through 2006 until
the maximum rate is 40% in 2006. As stated in BBA 97,
hospitals may waive any increase in coinsurance that may have
arisen from the implementation of the outpatient prospective
payment system (PPS).
[[Page 24538]]
The Comptroller General would be required to work with the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) to
evaluate the extent to which premiums for supplemental
policies reflect the acceleration of the reduction in
beneficiary coinsurance for hospital outpatient services and
result in savings to beneficiaries and to report to the
Congress by April 1, 2004.
Section 112. Preservation of coverage of drugs and
biologicals under part B of the medicare program
The provision would clarify policy with regard to coverage
of drugs, provided incident to physicians services, that
cannot be self-administered. The provision would specify that
such drugs are covered when they are not usually self-
administered by the patient.
Section 113. Elimination of time limitation on Medicare
benefits for immunosuppressive drugs
The provision would eliminate the current time limitations
on the coverage of immunosuppressive drugs for beneficiaries
who have received a covered organ transplant. The provision
would apply to drugs furnished, on or after the date
enactment.
Section 114. Imposition of balanced billing limits on
prescription drugs
The provision would specify that payment for drugs under
Part B must be made on the basis of assignment.
Subtitle C--Demonstration Projects and Studies
Section 121. Demonstration project for disease management for
severely chronically ill Medicare beneficiaries
The Secretary would be required to conduct a demonstration
project to illustrate the impact on costs and health outcomes
of applying disease management to Medicare beneficiaries with
diagnosed, advanced-stage congestive heart failure, diabetes,
or coronary heart disease. Up to 30,000 beneficiaries would
be able to enroll, on a voluntary basis, for disease
management services related to their chronic health
condition. In addition, contractors providing disease
management services would be responsible for providing
beneficiaries enrolled in the project with prescription
drugs.
Section 122. Cancer prevention and treatment demonstration
for ethnic and racial minorities
The provision would require the Secretary to conduct
demonstration projects for the purpose of developing models
and evaluating methods that improve the quality of cancer
prevention services, improve clinical outcomes, eliminate
disparities in the rate of preventive screening measures, and
promote collaboration with community-based organizations for
ethnic and racial minorities.
Section 123. Study on Medicare coverage of routine thyroid
screening
The provision would require the Secretary to request the
National Academy of Sciences, and as appropriate in
conjunction with the United States Preventive Services Task
Force, to analyze the addition of routine thyroid screening
under Medicare. The analysis would consider the short term
and long term benefits, and cost to Medicare, of adding such
coverage for some or all beneficiaries.
Section 124. MedPAC study on consumer coalitions
The provision would require MedPAC to conduct a study that
examines the use of consumer coalitions in the marketing of
Medicare+Choice plans. A consumer coalition would be defined
as a non-profit community-based organization that provides
information to beneficiaries about their health options under
Medicare and negotiates with Medicare+Choice plans on
benefits and premiums for beneficiaries who are members of
the coalition or otherwise affiliated with it.
Section 125. Study on limitation on state payment for
medicare cost-sharing affecting access to services for
qualified medicare beneficiaries
The provision would require the Secretary of HHS to conduct
a study to determine if access to certain services (including
mental health services) has been affected by a specific
provision in law. That provision specifies that states are
not required to pay Medicare cost-sharing charges for QMBs to
the extent these payments would result in a total payment in
excess of the Medicaid level.
Section 126. Institute of Medicine study on waiver of 24-
month waiting period for Medicare disability eligibility
for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and other
devastating diseases
The provision would provide for an Institute of Medicine
study that examines the appropriateness of waiving the 24-
month waiting period for Medicare disability eligibility for
an individual medically determined to have amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS) or an other disease that is as
rapidly debilitating.
Section 127. Studies on preventive interventions in primary
care for older Americans
The provision would require the Secretary, acting through
the United States Preventive Services Task Force, to conduct
a series of studies designed to identify preventive
interventions in primary care for older Americans.
Section 128. MedPAC study and report on Medicare coverage of
cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation and therapy services
The provision would require MedPAC to conduct a study on
coverage of cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation therapy
services under Medicare.
Title II--Rural Health Care Improvements
Subtitle A--Critical Access Hospital Provisions
Section 201. Clarification of no beneficiary cost-sharing for
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests furnished by
critical access hospitals
Effective for services furnished on or after the enactment
of BBRA99, Medicare beneficiaries would not be liable for any
coinsurance, deductible, copayment, or other cost sharing
amount with respect to clinical diagnostic laboratory
services furnished as an outpatient critical access hospital
(CAH) service. Conforming changes that clarify that CAHs are
reimbursed on a reasonable cost basis for outpatient clinical
diagnostic laboratory services are also included.
Section 202. Assistance with fee schedule payment for
professional services under all-inclusive rate
Effective for items and services furnished on or after
April 1, 2001, Medicare would pay a CAH for outpatient
services based on reasonable costs or, at the election of an
entity, would pay the CAH a facility fee based on reasonable
costs plus an amount based on 115% of Medicare's fee schedule
for professional services.
Section 203. Exemption of critical access hospital swing beds
from SNF PPS
Swing beds in critical access hospitals (CAHs) would be
exempt from the SNF prospective payment system. CAHs would be
paid for covered SNF services on a reasonable cost basis.
Section 204. Payment in critical access hospitals for
emergency room on-call physicians
When determining the allowable, reasonable cost of
outpatient CAH services, the Secretary would recognize
amounts for the compensation and related costs for on-call
emergency room physicians who are not present on the
premises, are not otherwise furnishing services, and are not
on-call at any other provider or facility. The Secretary
would define the reasonable payment amounts and the meaning
of the term ``on-call.'' The provision would be effective for
cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2001.
Section 205. Treatment of ambulance services furnished by
certain critical access hospitals
Ambulance services provided by a critical access hospital
(CAH) or provided by an entity that is owned or operated by a
CAH would be paid on a reasonable cost basis if the CAH or
entity is the only provider or supplier of ambulance services
that is located within a 35-mile drive of the CAH. The
provision would be effective for cost reporting periods
beginning on or after implementation of the fee schedule.
Section 206. GAO study on certain eligibility requirements
for critical access hospitals
Within one year of enactment, GAO would be required to
conduct a study on the eligibility requirements for critical
access hospitals (CAHs) with respect to limitations on
average length of stay and number of beds, including an
analysis of the feasibility of having a distinct part unit as
part of a CAH and the effect of seasonal variations in CAH
eligibility requirements. GAO also would be required to
analyze the effect of seasonal variations in patient
admissions on critical access hospital eligibility
requirements with respect to limits on average annual length
of stay and number of beds.
Subtitle B--Other Rural Hospitals Provisions
Section 211. Equitable treatment for rural disproportionate
share hospitals
For discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2001, all
hospitals would be eligible to receive DSH payments when
their DSH percentage (threshold amount) exceeds 15%. The DSH
payment formulas for sole community hospitals (SCHs), rural
referral centers (RRCs), rural hospitals that are both SCHs
and RRCs, small rural hospitals and urban hospitals with less
than 100 beds would be modified.
Section 212. Option to base eligibility for Medicare
dependent, small rural hospital program on discharges
during 2 of the 3 most recent audited cost reporting
periods
An otherwise qualifying small rural hospital would be able
to be classified as an MDH if at least 60% of its days or
discharges were attributable to Medicare Part A beneficiaries
in at least two of the three most recent audited cost
reporting periods for which the Secretary has a settled cost
report.
Section 213. Extension of option to use rebased target
amounts to all sole community hospitals
Any SCH would be able to elect payment based on hospital
specific, updated FY1996 costs if this target amount resulted
in higher Medicare payments. There would be a transition
period with Medicare payment based completely on updated
FY1996 hospital specific costs for discharges occurring after
FY2003.
[[Page 24539]]
Section 214. MedPAC analysis of impact of volume on per unit
cost of rural hospitals with psychiatric units
MedPAC would be required to report on the impact of volume
on the per unit cost of rural hospitals with psychiatric
units and include in its report a recommendation on whether
special treatment is warranted.
Subtitle C--Other Rural Provisions
Section 221. Assistance for providers of ambulance services
in rural areas
The provision would make additional payments to providers
of ground ambulance services for trips, originating in rural
areas, that are greater than 17 miles and up to 50 miles. The
payments would be made for services furnished on or after
implementation of the fee schedule and before January 1,
2004. The provision would require the Comptroller General to
conduct a study to examine both the costs of efficiently
providing ambulance services for trips originating in rural
areas and the means by which rural areas with low population
densities can be identified for the purpose of designating
areas in which the costs of ambulance services would be
expected to be higher. The Comptroller General would submit a
report to Congress by June 30, 2002 on the results of the
study, together with recommendations on steps that should be
taken to assure access to ambulance services for trips
originating in rural areas. The Secretary would be required
to take these findings into account when establishing the fee
schedule, beginning with 2004.
Section 222. Payment for certain physician assistant services
This provision would give permanent authority to physician
assistants who owned rural health clinics that lost their
designation as such to bill Medicare directly.
Section 223. Expansion of Medicare payment for telehealth
services
The provision would establish revised payment provisions,
effective no later than July 1, 2001, for services that are
provided via a telecommunications system by a physician or
practitioner to an eligible beneficiary in a rural area. The
Secretary would be required to make payments for telehealth
services to the physician or practitioner at the distant site
in an amount equal to the amount that would have been paid to
such physician or practitioner if the service had been
furnished to the beneficiary without the use of a
telecommunications system. A facility fee would be paid to
the originating site. Originating sites would include a
physician or practitioner office, a critical access hospital,
a rural health clinic, a Federally qualified health center or
a hospital. The Secretary would be required to conduct a
study, and submit recommendations to Congress, that identify
additional settings, sites, practitioners and geographic
areas that would be appropriate for telehealth services.
Entities participating in Federal demonstration projects
approved by, or receiving funding from, the Secretary as of
December 31, 2000 would be qualified sites.
Section 224. Expanding Access to rural health clinics
All hospitals of less than 50 beds that own rural health
clinics would be exempt from the per visit limit.
Section 225. MedPAC study on low-volume, isolated rural
health providers
MedPAC would be required to study the effect of low patient
and procedure volume on the financial status and Medicare
payment methods for hospital outpatient services, ambulance
services, hospital inpatient services, skilled nursing
facility services, and home health services in isolated rural
health care providers.
Title III--Provisions Relating to Part A
Subtitle A--Inpatient Hospital Services
Section 301. Revision of acute care hospital payment update
for 2001
All hospitals would receive the full market basket index
(MBI) as an update for FY2001. In order to implement this
increase for hospitals other than sole community hospitals
(SCH), those hospitals would receive the MBI minus 1.1
percentage points (the current statutory provision) for
discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2000 and before
April 1 2001; these non-SCH hospitals would receive the MBI
plus 1.1 percentage points for discharges occurring on or
after April 1, 2001 and before October 1, 2001. For FY2002
and FY2003, hospitals would receive the MBI minus .55
percentage points. For FY2004 and subsequently, hospitals
would receive the MBI.
The Secretary is directed to consider the prices of blood
and blood products purchased by hospitals in the next
rebasing and revision of the hospital market basket to
determine whether those prices are adequately reflected in
the market basket index. MedPAC is directed to conduct a
study on increased hospital costs attributable to complying
with new blood safety measures and providing such services
using new technologies among other issues.
For discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2001, the
Secretary would be able to adjust the standardized amount in
future fiscal years to correct for changes in the aggregate
Medicare payments caused by adjustments to the DRG weighting
factors in a previous fiscal year (or estimates that such
adjustments for a future fiscal year) that did not take into
account coding improvements or changes in discharge
classifications and did not accurately represent increases in
the resource intensity of patients treated by PPS hospitals.
Section 302. Additional modification in transition for
indirect medical education (IME) percentage adjustment
Teaching hospitals would receive 6.25% IME payment
adjustment (for each 10% increase in teaching intensity) for
discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2000 and before
April 1, 2001. The IME adjustment would increase to 6.75% for
discharges on or after April 1, 2001 and before October 1,
2001, for an average of 6.5% for FY2001. The IME adjustment
would be 6.375% in FY2002 and 5.5% in FY2003 and in
subsequent years.
Section 303. Decrease in reductions for disproportionate
share hospital (DSH) payments
Reductions in the DSH payment formula amounts would be 2%
in FY2001, 3% in FY2002, and 0% in FY2003 and subsequently.
To implement the FY2001 provision, DSH amounts for discharges
occurring on or after October 1, 2000 and before April 1,
2001, would be reduced by 3% which was the reduction in
effect prior to enactment of this provision. DSH amounts for
discharges occurring on or after April 1, 2001 and before
October 1, 2001 would be reduced by only 1 percentage point.
Section 304. Wage index improvements
For FY2001 or any fiscal year thereafter, a Medicare
Geographic Classification Review Board (MGCRB) decision to
reclassify a prospective payment system hospital for use of a
different area's wage index would be effective for 3 fiscal
years. The Secretary would establish procedures whereby a
hospital could elect to terminate this reclassification
decision before the end of such period. For FY2003 and
subsequently, MGCRB would base any comparison of the average
hourly wage of the hospital with the average hourly wage for
hospitals in the area using data from each of the two
immediately preceding surveys as well as data from the most
recently published hospital wage survey.
The Secretary would establish a process which would first
be available for discharges occurring on or after October 1,
2001 where a single wage index would be computed for all
geographic areas in the state. If the Secretary applies a
statewide geographic index, an application by an individual
hospital would not be considered. The Secretary would also
collect occupational data every three years in order to
construct an occupational mix adjustment for the hospital
area wage index. The first complete data collection effort
would occur no later than September 30, 2003 for application
beginning October 1, 2004.
Section 305. Payment for inpatient services in rehabilitation
hospitals
Total payments for rehabilitation hospitals in FY2002 would
equal the amounts of payments that would have been made if
the rehabilitation prospective payment system (PPS) had not
been enacted. A rehabilitation facility would be able to make
a one-time election before the start of the PPS to be paid
based on a fully phased-in PPS rate.
Section 306. Payment for inpatient services of psychiatric
hospitals
The provision would increase the incentive payments for
psychiatric hospitals and distinct part units to 3% for cost
reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2000.
Section 307. Payment for inpatient services of long-term care
hospitals
For cost reporting periods beginning during FY 2001, long
term hospitals would have the national cap increased by 2%
and the target amount increased by 25%. Neither these
payments nor the increased bonus payments provided by BBRA 99
would be factored into the development of the prospective
payment system (PPS) for long term hospitals. When developing
the PPS for inpatient long term hospitals, the Secretary
would be required to examine the feasibility and impact of
basing payment on the existing (or refined) acute hospital
DRGs and using the most recently available hospital discharge
data. If the Secretary is unable to implement a long term
hospital PPS by October 1, 2002, the Secretary would be
required to implement a PPS for these hospitals using the
existing acute hospital DRGs that have been modified where
feasible.
Subtitle B--Adjustments to PPS Payments for Skilled Nursing Facilities
Section 311. Elimination of reduction in skilled nursing
facility (SNF) market basket update in 2001
The provision would modify the schedule and rates according
to which federal per diem payments are updated. In FY 2002
and FY 2003 the updates would be the market basket index
increase minus 0.5 percentage point. The update rate for the
period October 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001, would be the
market basket index increase minus 1 percentage point; the
update rate for the period April 1, 2001, through September
30, 2001, would be the market basket index increase plus one
percentage point. Temporary increases in the federal per diem
rates provided by BBRA 99 would be in addition to the
[[Page 24540]]
increases in this provision. By July 1, 2002, the Comptroller
General would be required to submit a report to Congress on
the adequacy of Medicare payments to SNFs, taking into
account the role of private payers, medicaid, and case mix on
the financial performance of SNFs and including an analysis,
by RUG classification, of the number and characteristics of
such facilities. By January 1, 2005, the Secretary would be
required to submit a report to Congress on alternatives for
classification of SNF patients.
Section 312. Increase in nursing component of PPS federal
rate
The provision would increase the nursing component of each
RUG by 16.66 percent over current law for SNF care furnished
after April 1, 2001, and before October 1, 2002. Skilled
nursing facilities would be required to post nurse staffing
information daily for each shift in the facility.
The Comptroller General would be required to conduct an
audit of nurse staffing ratios in a sample of SNFs and to
report to Congress by August 1, 2002, on the results of the
audit of nurse staffing ratios and recommend whether the
additional 16.66 percent payment should be continued.
Section 313. Application of SNF consolidated billing
requirement limited to part A covered stays
Effective January 1, 2001, the provision would limit the
current law consolidated billing requirement to services and
items furnished to SNF residents in a Medicare part A covered
stay and to therapy services furnished in part A and part B
covered stays.
The Inspector General of HHS would be required to monitor
part B payments to SNFs on behalf of residents who are not in
a part A covered stay.
Section 314. Adjustment of rehabilitation RUGS to correct
anomaly in payment rates
Effective for skilled nursing facility (SNF) services
furnished on or after April 1, 2002, the provision would
increase by 6.7 percent certain federal per diem payments to
ensure that Medicare payments for SNF residents with ``ultra
high'' and ``high'' rehabilitation therapy needs are
appropriate in relation to payments for residents needing
``medium'' or ``low'' levels of therapy. The 20 percent
additional payment that was provided in BBRA 99 for certain
RUGS is removed to make this provision budget neutral.
The Inspector General of HHS would be required to review
and report to Congress by October 1, 2001, regarding whether
the RUG payment structure as in effect under the BBRA 99
includes incentives for the delivery of inadequate care.
Section 315. Establishment of process for geographic
reclassification
The provision would permit the Secretary to establish a
process for geographic reclassification of skilled nursing
facilities based upon the method used for inpatient
hospitals. The Secretary may implement the process upon
completion of the data collection necessary to calculate an
area wage index for workers in skilled nursing facilities.
Subtitle C--Hospice Care
Section 321. Full market basket increase for 2001
The provision would modify update procedures for Medicare
daily payment rates for hospice care. It would provide an
increase in FY 2001 equal to the full increase in the market
basket index. (The rates would be lower in the period October
1, 2000, through March 21, 2001, and higher in the period
April 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001.) For FY 2002,
payments would be updated by the market basket index increase
minus .25 percentage point. The temporary increase in payment
rates provided in BBRA 99 for FY 2001 and FY 2002 (.5 percent
and .75 percent, respectively) would be included in the base
on which updates are computed.
Section 322. Clarification of physician certification
Effective for certifications of terminal illness made on or
after the date of enactment, the provision would modify
current law to specify that the physician's or hospice
medical director's certification of terminal illness would be
based on his/her clinical judgment regarding the normal
course of the individual's illness. The Secretary would be
required to study and report to Congress within 2 years of
enactment on the appropriateness of certification of
terminally ill individuals and the effect of this provision
on such certification.
Section 323. MedPAC report on access to, and use of, hospice
benefit
The provision would require MedPAC to examine the factors
affecting the use of Medicare hospice benefits, including
delay of entry into the hospice program and urban and rural
differences in utilization rates. The provision would require
a report on the study to be submitted to Congress 18 months
after enactment.
Section 331. Relief From Medicare Part A late enrollment
penalty for group buy-in for state and local retirees
The provision would exempt certain state and local
retirees, retiring prior to January 1, 2002, from the Part A
delayed enrollment penalties. These would be groups of
persons for whom the state or local government elected to pay
the delayed Part A enrollment penalty for life. The amount of
the delayed enrollment penalty which would otherwise be
assessed would be reduced by an amount equal to the total
amount of Medicare payroll taxes paid by the employee and the
employer on behalf of the employee.
Section 332. Posting of information on nursing facility
staffing.
The provision would require skilled nursing facilities to
post nurse staffing information daily for each shift in the
facility.
Title IV--Provisions Relating to Part B
Subtitle A--Hospital Outpatient Services
Section 401. Revision of hospital outpatient PPS payment
update
Effective as if enacted with the BBRA 99, the provision
would modify the current law update rates applicable to the
hospital outpatient PPS by providing in FY 2001 an update
equal to the full rate of increase in the market basket
index. As under current law, the increase in FY 2002 would be
the market basket index increase minus one percentage point.
If the Secretary determines that updates to the adjustment
factor used to convert the relative utilization weights under
the PPS into payment amounts have, or are likely to, result
in hospitals' changing their coding or classification of
covered services, thereby changing aggregate payments, the
Secretary would be authorized to adjust the conversion factor
in later years to eliminate the effect of coding or
classification changes.
Section 402. Clarifying process and standards for determining
eligibility of devices for pass-through payments under
hospital outpatient PPS
The provision would modify the procedures and standards by
which certain medical devices are categorized and determined
eligible for pass-through payments under the PPS. Through
public rule-making procedures, the Secretary would be
required to establish criteria for defining special payment
categories under the PPS for new medical devices. The
Secretary would be required to promulgate, through the use of
a program memorandum, initial categories that would encompass
each of the individual devices that the Secretary had
designated as qualifying for the pass-through payments to
date. In addition, similar devices not so designated because
they were payable under Medicare prior to December 31, 1996,
would also be included in initial categories. The Secretary
would be required to create additional new categories in the
future to accommodate new technologies meeting the ``not
insignificant cost'' test established in BBRA 99.
Once the categories were established, pass-through payments
currently authorized under section 1833(t)(b) of the Social
Security Act would proceed on a category-specific, rather
than device-specific basis. These payments would be
designated as ``category-based pass-through payments.'' These
payments would be continued to be made for the 2 to 3 years
payment period originally specified in BBRA 99, and, for each
given category, would begin when the first such payment is
made for any device included in a specified category. At the
conclusion of this transitional payment period, categories
would sunset and payment for the device would be included in
the underlying PPS payment for the related service.
Section 403. Application of OPD PPS transitional corridor
payments to certain hospitals that did not submit a 1996
cost report
Effective as if enacted with BBRA 99, the provision would
modify current law as enacted in BBA 99 to enable all
hospitals, not just those hospitals filing 1996 cost reports,
to be eligible for transitional payments under the PPS.
Section 404. Application of rules for determining provider-
based status for certain entities
The provision would grandfather existing arrangements
whereby certain entities (such as outpatient clinics, skilled
nursing facilities, etc.) are considered ``provider-based''
entities, meaning they are affiliated financially and
clinically with a main hospital. Existing provider-based
status designations would continue for two years beginning
October 1, 2000. If a facility or organization requests
approval for provider-based status during the period October
1, 2000, through September 31, 2002, it could not be treated
as if it did not have such status during the period of time
the determination is pending. In making such a status
determination on or after October 1, 2000, HCFA would treat
the applicant as satisfying any requirements or standards for
geographic location if it satisfied geographic location
requirements in regulations or is located not more than 35
miles from the main campus of the hospital.
An applicant facility or organization would be treated as
satisfying all requirements for provider-based status if it
is owned or operated by a unit of State or local government
or is a public or private nonprofit corporation that is
formally granted governmental powers by a unit of State or
local government, or is a private hospital that, under
contract, serves certain low income households or has a
certain disproportionate share adjustment.
These provisions are in effect during a two-year period
beginning on October 1, 2000.
[[Page 24541]]
Section 405. Treatment of children's hospitals under
prospective payment system
The BBRA 99 provides special ``hold harmless'' payments to
ensure that cancer hospitals would receive no less under the
hospital outpatient PPS than they would have received, in
aggregate, under the ``pre-BBA'' system, that is, the pre-PPS
payment system. Effective as if included in the BBRA 99, the
provision would extend this hold harmless protection to
children's hospitals.
Sec 406. Inclusion of temperature monitored cryoablation
The provision would include temperature monitored
cryoablation as part of the transitional pass-through for
certain medical devices, drugs, and biologicals under the
hospital outpatient prospective payment system, effective
April 1, 2001.
Subtitle B--Provisions Relating to Physicians Services
Section 411. GAO studies relating to physicians' services
The provision would require the GAO to conduct a study on
the appropriateness of furnishing in physicians offices
specialist services (such as gastrointestinal endoscopic
physicians services) which are ordinarily furnished in
hospital outpatient departments. The GAO would also be
required to study the refinements to the practice expense
relative value units made during the transition to the
resource-based system.
Section 412. Physician group practice demonstration
The provision would require the Secretary to conduct
demonstration projects to test, and if proven effective,
expand the use of incentives to health care groups
participating under Medicare. Such incentives would be
designed to encourage coordination of care furnished under
Medicare Parts A and B by institutional and other providers
and practitioners; to encourage investment in administrative
structures and processes to encourage efficient service
delivery; and to reward physicians for improving health
outcomes. The Secretary would establish for each group
participating in a demonstration, a base expenditure amount
and an expenditure target (reflecting base expenditures
adjusted for risk and expected growth rates). The Secretary
would pay each group a bonus for each year equal to a portion
of the savings for the year relative to the target. In
addition, at such time as the Secretary had developed
appropriate criteria, the Secretary would pay an additional
bonus related to process and outcome improvements. Total
payments under demonstrations could not exceed what the
Secretary estimates would be paid in the absence of the
demonstration program.
Section 413. Study on enrollment procedures for groups that
retain independent contractor physicians
The provision would require the Comptroller General to
conduct a study of the current Medicare enrollment process
for groups that retain independent contractor physicians;
particular emphasis would be placed on hospital-based
physicians, such as emergency department staffing groups.
Subtitle C--Other Services
Section 421. One-year extension of moratorium on therapy
caps; report on standards for supervision of physical
therapy assistants
The provision would extend the moratorium on the physical
therapy and occupational therapy caps for 1 year through
2002; it would also extend the requirement for focused
reviews of therapy claims for the same period. The Secretary
would be required to conduct a study on the implications of
eliminating the ``in the room'' supervision requirement for
Medicare payment for physical therapy assistants who are
supervised by physical therapists and the implications of
this requirement on the physical therapy cap.
Section 422. Update in renal dialysis composite rate
The provision would specify that the composite rate payment
for renal dialysis services would be increased by 2.4% for
2001. The provision would require the Secretary to collect
data and develop an end-stage renal disease (ESRD) market
basket whereby the Secretary could estimate before the
beginning of a year the percentage increase in costs for the
mix of labor and non-labor goods and services included in the
composite rate. The Secretary would report to Congress on the
index together with recommendations on the appropriateness of
an annual or periodic update mechanism for dialysis services.
The Comptroller General would be required to study the access
of beneficiaries to dialysis services. There is a hold
harmless provision for facilities who received exemptions for
their 2000 rates, and for facilities that had their
applications denied in 2000 but resubmit them by July 1,
2001and are approved.
Section 423. Payment for ambulance services
The provision would provide for the full inflation update
in ambulance payments for 2001. It would also specify that
any phase-in of the ambulance fee schedule would provide for
full payment of national mileage rates in states where
separate mileage payments were not made prior to
implementation of the fee schedule.
Section 424. Ambulatory surgical centers
The provision would delay implementation of proposed
regulatory changes to the ambulatory payment classification
system, which are based on 1994 cost data, until January 1,
2002. At that time, such changes would be phased in over 4
years: in the first year the payment amounts would be 25
percent of the revised rates and 75 percent of the prior
system rates; in the second year payments would be 50 percent
of the revised rates and 50 percent of the prior system
rates, etc. The provision also requires that the revised
system, based on 1999 (or later) cost data, be implemented
January 1, 2003. (The phase-in of the revised system and 1994
data would end when the system with 1999 or later data was
implemented.)
Section 425. Full update for durable medical equipment
The provision would modify updates to payments for durable
medical equipment. For 2001, the payments for covered DME
would be increased by the full increase in the consumer price
index for urban consumers during the 12-month period ending
June 2000. No increase would be authorized for 2002.
Section 426. Full update for orthotics and prosthetics
The provision would modify updates to payments for
orthotics and prosthetics: in 2000 the rates would be
increased by one percent; in 2001, the increase would be
equal to the percentage increase in the consumer price index
for urban consumers during the 12-month period ending with
June, 2000; for 2002, payments would be increased by one
percent over the prior year's amounts.
Section 427. Establishment of special payment provisions and
requirements for prosthetics and certain custom
fabricated orthotic items
Under the provision, certain prosthetics or custom
fabricated orthotics would be covered by Medicare if
furnished by a qualified practitioner and fabricated by a
qualified practitioner or qualified supplier. The Secretary
would be required to establish a list of such items in
consultation with experts. Within one year of enactment, the
Secretary would be required to promulgate regulations to
provide these items, using negotiated rulemaking procedures.
Not later than 6 months from enactment, the Comptroller
General would be required to submit to Congress a report on
the Secretary's compliance with the Administrative Procedures
Act with regard to HCFA Ruling 96-1; certain impacts of that
ruling; the potential for fraud and abuse in provision of
prosthetics and orthotics under special payment rules and for
custom fabricated items; and the effect on Medicare and
Medicaid payments if that ruling were overturned.
Section 428. Replacement of prosthetic devices and parts
The provision would authorize Medicare coverage for
replacement of artificial limbs, or replacement parts for
such devices, if ordered by a physician for specified
reasons. Effective for items furnished on or after enactment,
coverage would apply to prosthetic items 3 or more years old,
and would supersede any 5-year age rules for such items under
current law.
Section 429. Revised part B payment for drugs and biologicals
and related services
The provision would require the Comptroller General to
study and submit a report to Congress and the Secretary on
the reimbursement for drugs and biologicals and for related
services under Medicare; the report would include specific
recommendations for revised payment methodologies. The
Secretary would revise the current payment methodologies for
covered drugs and biologicals and related services based on
these recommendations; however, total payments under the
revised methodologies could not exceed the aggregate payments
the Secretary estimates would have been made under the
current law. The provision would establish a temporary
injunction on changes in payment rates until the Secretary
reviewed the GAO report.
Section 430. Contrast enhanced diagnostic procedures under
hospital prospective payment system
The provision would require the Secretary to create under
that hospital outpatient PPS additional and separate groups
of covered services which include procedures that utilize
contrast media. The provision would take effect January 1,
2001. and separate groups of covered services which include
procedures that utilize contrast media.
Section 431. Qualifications for community mental health
centers
The provision would clarify the qualifications for
community mental health centers providing partial
hospitalization services under Medicare.
Section 432. Modification of medicare billing requirements
for certain indian providers
The provision would authorize hospitals and free-standing
ambulatory care clinics of the Indian Health Service to bill
Medicare for services which are paid for under the physician
fee schedule.
Section 433. GAO study on coverage of surgical first
assisting services of certified registered nurse first
assistants
The provision would require the Comptroller General to
conduct a study on the effect on both the program and
beneficiaries of
[[Page 24542]]
covering surgical first assisting services of certified
registered nurse first assistants.
Section 434. MedPAC study and report on medicare
reimbursement for services provided by certain providers
The provision would require MedPAC to conduct a study on
the appropriateness of current payment rates for services
provided by a certified nurse midwife, physician assistant,
nurse practitioner, and clinical nurse specialist.
Section 435. MedPAC study and report on medicare coverage of
services provided by certain non-physician providers
The provision would require MedPAC to conduct a study to
determine the appropriateness of Medicare coverage of the
services provided by a surgical technologist, marriage
counselor, pastoral care counselor, and licensed professional
counselor of mental health.
Section 436. GAO study and report on the costs of emergency
and medical transportation services
The provision would require the Comptroller General to
conduct a study on the costs of providing emergency and
medical transportation services across the range of acuity
levels of conditions for which such transportation services
are provided.
Section 437. GAO studies and reports on medicare payments
The provision would require the Comptroller General to
conduct a study on the post-payment audit process for
physicians services. The study would include the proper level
of resources HCFA should devote to educating physicians
regarding coding and billing, documentation requirements, and
calculation of overpayments. The Comptroller General would
also be required to conduct a study of the aggregate effects
of regulatory, audit, oversight and paperwork burdens on
physicians and other health care providers participating in
Medicare.
Section 439. MedPAC study on access to outpatient pain
management services
The provision would require MedPAC to conduct a study on
the barriers to coverage and payment for outpatient
interventional pain medicine procedures under Medicare.
TITLE V--PROVISION RELATING TO PARTS A AND B
Subtitle A--Home Health Services
Section 501. 1-Year additional delay in application of 15
percent reduction on payment limits fo home health
services
The provision would require that the aggregate amount of
Medicare payments to home health agencies in the second year
of the PPS (FY 2002) shall equal the aggregate payments in
the first year of the PPS, updated by the market basket index
(MBI) increase minus 1.1 percentage points. The 15 percent
reduction to aggregate PPS amounts, which, under current law,
would go into effect October 1, 2001, would be delayed until
October 1, 2002.
The Comptroller General (rather than the Secretary) would
be required to submit, by April 1, 2002, a report analyzing
the need for the 15 percent or other reduction.
If the Secretary determines that updates to the PPS system
for a previous fiscal year (or estimates of such adjustments
for a future fiscal year) did (or are likely to) result in a
change in aggregate payments due to changes in coding or
classification of beneficiaries' service needs that do not
reflect real changes in case mix, effective for home health
episodes concluding on or after October 1, 2001, the
Secretary may adjust PPS amounts to eliminate the effect of
such coding or classification changes.
Section 502. Restoration of full home health market basket
update for home health services for fiscal year 2001
The provision would modify the home health PPS updates.
During the period October 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001,
the rates promulgated in the home health PPS regulations on
July 3, 2000, would apply for 60-day episodes of care (or
visits) ending in that period. For the period April 1, 2001,
through September 31, 2001, those rates would be increased by
2.2 percent for 60-day episodes (or visits) ending in that
time period.
Section 503. Temporary two-month extension of periodic
interim payments
The provision would extend applicability of periodic
interim payments provided under current law. Home health
agencies that were receiving such payments as of September
30, 2000, would continue to receive them until December 1,
2000. The payments in each of November and December 2000
would equal the amount those agencies received in October
2000. The amounts would be included in the agency's last
settled cost report before implementation of the PPS.
Section 504. Use of telehealth in delivery of home health
services
The provision would clarify that the telecommunications
provisions should not be construed as preventing a home
health agency from providing a service, for which payment is
made under the prospective payment system, via a
telecommunications system, provided that the services do not
substitute for ``in-person'' home health services ordered by
a physician as part of a plan of care or are not considered a
home health visit for purposes of eligibility or payment.
Section 505. Study on costs to home health agencies of
purchasing nonroutine medical supplies
The provision would require that, not later than October 1,
2001, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a
report regarding the variation in prices home health agencies
pay for nonroutine supplies, the volume of supplies used, and
what effect the variations have on the provision of services.
The Secretary would be required to make recommendations on
whether Medicare payment for those supplies should be made
separately from the home health PPS.
Section 506. Treatment of branch offices; GAO study on
supervision of home health care provided in isolated
rural areas
The provision would clarify that neither time nor distance
between a home health agency parent office and a branch
office shall be the sole determinant of a home health
agency's branch office status. The Secretary would be
authorized to include forms of technology in determining
``supervision'' for purposes of determining a home health
agency's branch office status.
Not later than January 1, 2002, the Comptroller General
would be required to submit to Congress a report regarding
the adequacy of supervision and quality of home health
services provided by home health agency branch offices and
subunits in isolated rural areas and to make recommendations
on whether national standards for supervision would be
appropriate in assuring quality.
Section 507. Clarification of the homebound benefit
The provision clarifies that the need for adult day care
for patient's plan of treatment does not preclude appropriate
coverage for home health care for other medical conditions.
The provision also clarifies the ability of homebound
beneficiaries to attend religious services without being
disqualified from receiving home health benefits.
Subtitle B--Direct Graduate Medical Education
Section 511. Increase in floor for direct graduate medical
education payments
A hospital's approved per resident amount for cost
reporting periods beginning during FY2002 would not be less
than 85% of the locality adjusted national average per
resident amount.
Section 512. Change in distribution formula for
Medicare+Choice-related nursing and allied health
education costs
A hospital would receive nursing and allied health payments
for Medicare managed care enrollees based on its per day cost
of allied and nursing health programs and number of days
attributed to Medicare enrollees in comparison to that in all
other hospitals. The provision would be effective for
portions of cost reporting periods occurring on or after
January 1, 2001.
Subtitle C--Changes in Medicare Coverage and Appeals Process
Section 521. Revisions to medicare appeals process
The provision would modify the Medicare appeals process.
Generally, initial determinations by the Secretary would be
concluded no later than 45-days from the date the Secretary
received a claim for benefits. Any individual dissatisfied
with the initial determination would be entitled to a
redetermination by the carrier or fiscal intermediary who
made the initial determination. Such redetermination would be
required to be completed within 30 days of a beneficiary's
request. Beneficiaries could appeal the outcome of a
redetermination by seeking a reconsideration. Generally, a
request for a reconsideration must be initiated no later than
180 days after the date the individual receives the notice of
an adverse redetermination. In addition, if contested amounts
are greater than $100, an individual would be able to appeal
an adverse reconsideration decision by requesting a hearing
by the Secretary (first for a hearing by an administrative
law judge, then in certain circumstances, for a hearing
before the Department Appeals Board). If the dispute is not
satisfactorily resolved through this administrative process,
and if contested amounts are greater than $1,000, the
individual would be able to request judicial review of the
Secretary's final decision. Aggregation of claims to meet
these thresholds would be permitted.
An expedited determination would be available for a
beneficiary who received notice: 1) that a provider plans to
terminate services and a physician certifies that failure to
continue the provisions of the services is likely to place
the beneficiary's health at risk; or 2) that the provider
plans to discharge the beneficiary.
The Secretary would enter into 3-year contracts with at
least 12 qualified independent contractors (QICs) to conduct
reconsiderations. A QIC would promptly notify beneficiaries
and Medicare claims processing contractors of its
determinations. A beneficiary could appeal the decision of a
QIC to an ALJ. In cases where the ALJ decision is not
rendered within the 90-day deadline, the appealing party
would be able to request a DAB hearing.
The Secretary would perform outreach activities to inform
beneficiaries, providers,
[[Page 24543]]
and suppliers of their appeal rights and procedures. The
Secretary would submit to Congress an annual report including
information on the number of appeals for the previous year,
identifying issues that require administrative or legislative
actions, and including recommendations for change as
necessary. The report would also contain an analysis of the
consistency of the QIC determinations as well as the cause
for any identified inconsistencies.
Section 522. Revisions to medicare coverage process
The provision would clarify when and under what
circumstances Medicare coverage policy could be challenged.
An aggrieved party could file a complaint concerning a
national coverage decision. Such complaint would be reviewed
by the Department Appeals Board (DAB) of HHS. The provision
would also permit an aggrieved party to file a complaint
concerning a local coverage determination. In this case, the
determination would be reviewed by an administrative law
judge. If unsatisfied, complainants could subsequently seek
review of such a local policy by the DAB. In both cases, a
DAB decision would constitute final HHS action, and would be
subject to judicial review. The provision would also permit
an affected party to submit a request to the Secretary to
issue a national coverage or noncoverage determination if one
has not been issued. The Secretary would have 90 days to
respond. HHS would be required to prepare an annual report on
national coverage determinations.
Subtitle D--Improving Access to New Technologies
Section 531. Reimbursement improvements for new clinical
laboratory tests and durable medical equipment
The provision would specify that the national limitation
amount for a new clinical laboratory test would equal 100% of
the national median for such test. The Secretary would be
required to establish procedures that permit public
consultation for coding and payment determinations for new
clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and new durable medical
equipment. The Secretary would be required to report to
Congress on specific procedures used to adjust payments for
advanced technologies; the report would include
recommendations for legislative changes needed to assure fair
and appropriate payments.
Section 532. Retention of HCPCS level III Codes.
The provision would extend the time for the use of local
codes (known as HCPCS level III codes) through December 31,
2003; the Secretary would be required to make the codes
available to the public.
Section 533. Recognition of new medical technologies under
medicare inpatient hospital PPS
The Secretary would be required to submit a report to
Congress no later than April 1, 2001, on potential methods
for more rapidly incorporating new medical services and
technologies used in the inpatient setting in the clinical
coding system used with respect to payment for inpatient
services. The Secretary would be required to identify the
preferred methods for expediting these coding modifications
in her report, and to implement such method by October 1,
2001. Additional hospital payments could be made by means of
a new technology group (DRG), an add-on payment, payment
adjustment or other mechanism. However, separate fee
schedules for additional new technology payments would not be
permitted. The Secretary would implement the new mechanism on
a budget neutral basis. The total amount of projected
additional payments under the mechanism would be limited to
an amount not greater than the Secretary's annual estimation
of the costs attributable to the introduction of new
technology in the hospital sector as a whole (as estimated
for purposes of the annual hospital update calculation).
Subtitle E--Other Provisions
Section 541. Increase in reimbursement for bad debt
Effective beginning with cost reports starting in FY2001,
the provision would increase the percentage of the reasonable
costs associated with beneficiaries' bad debt in hospitals
that Medicare would reimburse to 70%.
Section 542. Treatment of certain physician pathology
services under medicare
The provision would permit independent laboratories, under
a grandfather arrangement to continue, for a 2-year period
(2001-2002), direct billing for the technical component of
pathology services provided to hospital inpatients and
hospital outpatients. The Comptroller General would be
required to conduct a study of the effect of these provisions
on hospitals and laboratories and access of fee-for-service
beneficiaries to the technical component of physician
pathology services. The report would include recommendations
on whether the provisions should continue after the 2-year
period for either (or both) inpatient and outpatient hospital
services and whether the provision should be extended to
other hospitals.
Section 543. Extension of advisory opinion authority
The Office of the Inspector General's authority to issue
advisory opinions to outside parties who request guidance on
the applicability of the anti-kickback statute, safe harbor
provisions and other OIG health care fraud and abuse
sanctions would be made permanent.
Section 544. Change in annual MedPAC reporting
The provision would delay the reporting date for the MedPAC
report on issues affecting the Medicare program by 15 days to
June 15. The provision would also require record votes on
recommendations contained both in this report and the March
report on payment policies.
Section 545. Development of patient assessment instruments
The provision would require the Secretary to report to the
Congress on the development of standard instruments for the
assessment of the health and functional status of patients
and make recommendations on the use of such standard
instruments for payment purposes.
Section 546. GAO report on impact of the emergency medical
treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) on hospital
emergency departments
GAO would be required to evaluate the impact of the
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act on
hospitals, emergency physicians, and on-call physicians
covering emergency departments and to submit a report to
Congress by May 1, 2001.
TITLE VI--PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART C (MEDICARE+CHOICE PROGRAM) AND
OTHER MEDICARE MANAGED CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Medicare+Choice Payment Reforms
Section 601. Increase in minimum payment amount
The provision would set the minimum payment amount for aged
enrollees within the 50 states and the District of Columbia
in a Metropolitan Statistical Area with a population of more
than 250,000 at $525 in 2001. For all other areas within the
50 States and the District of Columbia, the minimum would be
$475. For any area outside the 50 States and the District of
Columbia, the $525 and $475 minimum amounts would also be
applied, except that the 2001 minimum payment amount could
not exceed 120% of the 2000 minimum payment amount.
Section 602. Increase in minimum percentage increase
This provision would apply a 3% minimum update in 2001 and
return to the current law minimum update of 2% thereafter.
Section 603. 10-Year phase in of risk adjustment
Until such time that risk adjustment is based on data from
inpatient hospital and ambulatory settings, 10% of payments
would be based on risk-adjusted inpatient data built on the
15 principal inpatient diagnostic cost groups (PIP-DCGs) and
90% would be adjusted solely using the older demographic
method. Beginning with the first year that risk adjustment is
based on data from inpatient hospitals and ambulatory
settings, it would be phased in over 10 years, in equal
increments. (The Secretary currently plans to implement this
new system in 2004.)
Section 604. Transition to revised Medicare+Choice payment
rates
Within 2 weeks after the date of enactment of the Act, the
Secretary must announce revised M+C capitation rates for
2001, due to changes from this Act. Plans that previously
provided notice of their intention to terminate contracts or
reduce their service area for 2001 would have 2 weeks after
announcement of the revised rates to rescind their notice and
submit ACR information. Further, any M+C organization that
would receive higher capitation payments as a result of this
Act must submit revised ACR information within 2 weeks after
announcement of the revised rates. Plans may only reduce
premiums, reduce cost sharing, enhance benefits, or utilize
stabilization funds. Notwithstanding the issuance of revised
rates, M+C organizations would continue to be paid on a fee-
for-service basis for costs associated with new national
coverage determinations that are made mid-year.
Section 605. Revision of payment rates for ESRD patients
enrolled in Medicare+Choice plans
This provision would require that the Secretary increase
the M+C payment rates for enrollees with ESRD. The revised
rates would reflect the demonstration rate (including the
risk-adjustment methodology) of social health maintenance
organizations' ESRD capitation demonstrations. The revised
rates would include adjustments for factors such as renal
treatment modality, age, and underlying cause of the disease.
Section 606. Permitting premium reductions as additional
benefits under Medicare+Choice plans
This provision would permit M+C plans to offer reduced
Medicare Part B premiums to their enrollees as part of
providing any required additional benefits or reduced cost-
[[Page 24544]]
sharing. An M+C organization could elect a reduction in its
M+C payment up to 125% of the annual Part B premium. However,
only 80% of this amount could be used to reduce an enrollee's
actual Part B premium. This would have the effect of
returning up to 100% of the beneficiary's Part B premium. The
reduction would apply uniformly to each enrollee of the M+C
plan. Plans would include information about Part B premium
reductions as part of the required information that is
provided to enrollees for comparing plan options.
Section 607. Full implementation of risk adjustment for
congestive heart failure enrollees for 2001
This provision would fully implement risk adjustment based
on inpatient hospital diagnoses for an individual who had a
qualifying congestive heart failure inpatient diagnosis
between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000, if that individual
was enrolled in a coordinated care plan offered on January 1,
2001. This would apply for only 1 year, beginning on January
1, 2001. This payment amount would be excluded from the
determination of the budget neutrality factor.
Section 608. Expansion of application of Medicare+Choice new
entry bonus
This provision would expand the application of the new
entry bonus for M+C plans to include areas for which
notification had been provided, as of October 3, 2000, that
no plans would be available January 1, 2001.
Section 609. Report on inclusion of certain costs of the
Department of Veterans Affairs and Military Facility
Services in calculating Medicare+Choice payment rates
The Secratary shall report to Congress by January 1, 2003,
on a method to phase-in the costs of military facility
services furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs or
the Department of Defense to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries
in the calculation of an area's M+C capitation payment. This
report would include, on a county-by-county basis: the actual
or estimated costs of such services to Medicare-eligible
beneficiaries; the change in M+C capitation payment rates if
such costs were included in the calculation of payment rates;
one or more proposals for the implementation of payment
adjustments to M+C plans in counties where the payment rate
has been affected due to failure to account for the cost of
such services; and a system to ensure that when a M+C
enrollee receives covered services through a facility of
these Departments, there is an appropriate payment recovery
to the Medicare program.
Subtitle B--Other Medicare+Choice Reforms
Section 611. Payments of additional amounts for new benefits
covered during a contract term
The provision would require payment adjustments to M+C
plans if a legislative change resulted in significant
increased costs, similar to the current law requirements for
adjusting payments due to significant increased costs
resulting from National Coverage Determination (NCDs). In
addition, this provision would require that cost projections
and payment adjustments be based on actuarial estimates
provided by the Chief Actuary of the Health Care Financing
Administration.
Section 612. Restriction on implementation of significant new
regulatory requirements mid-year
The provision would preclude the Secretary from
implementing, other than at the beginning of a calendar year,
regulations that impose new, significant regulatory
requirements on M+C organizations and plans.
Section 613. Timely approval of marketing material that
follows model marketing language
The provision would require the Secretary to make
decisions, within 10 days, approving or modifying marketing
material used by M+C organizations, provided that the
organization uses model language specified by the Secretary.
This provision would apply to marketing material submitted on
or after January 1, 2001.
Section 614. Avoiding duplicative regulation
This provision would further stipulate when Medicare law
preempts State law or regulation from applying to M+C plans,
by specifying that the term benefit requirements includes
cost-sharing requirements. Second, the provision would
stipulate that State laws and regulations affecting marketing
materials, and summaries and schedules of benefits regarding
an M+C plan, would also be preempted by Medicare law.
Section 615. election of uniform local coverage policy For
Medicare+Choice plan covering multiple localities
An M+C organization offering a plan in an area with more
than one local coverage policy would be able to elect to have
the local coverage policy for the part of the area that is
most beneficial to M+C enrollees (as identified by the
Secretary) apply to all M+C enrollees enrolled in the plan.
Section 616. Eliminating health disparities in
Medicare+Choice Program
This provision would expand the M+C quality assurance
programs for M+C plans to include a separate focus on racial
and ethnic minorities. The Secretary would also be required
to report to Congress how the quality assurance programs
focus on racial and ethnic minorities, within 2 years after
enactment and biannually thereafter.
Section 617. Medicare+Choice Program compatibility with
employer or union group health plans
In order to make the M+C program compatible with employer
or union group health plans, this provision would allow the
Secretary to waive or modify requirements that hinder the
design of, offering of, or enrollment in certain M+C plans.
Plans included in the category are M+C plans under contract
between M+C organizations and employers, labor organizations,
or trustees of a fund established by employers and/or labor
organizations.
Section 618. Special Medigap enrollment anti-discrimination
provision for certain beneficiaries
This provision would extend the period for Medigap
enrollment for certain M+C enrollees affected by termination
of coverage. For individuals enrolled in an M+C plan during a
12-month trial period, their trial period would begin again
if they re-enrolled in another M+C plan because of an
involuntary termination. During this new trial period, they
would retain their rights to enroll in a Medigap policy;
however, the total time for a trial period could not exceed 2
years from the time they first enrolled in an M+C plan.
Section 619. Restoring effective date of elections and
changes of elections of Medicare+Choice plans
This provision would allow individuals who enroll in an M+C
plan after the 10th day of the month to receive coverage
beginning on the first day of the next calendar month,
effective January 1, 2001.
Section 620. Permitting ESRD beneficiaries to enroll in
another Medicare+Choice plan if the plan in which they
are enrolled is terminated
This provision would permit ESRD beneficiaries to enroll in
another M+C plan if they lost coverage when their plan
terminated its contract or reduced its service area. This
provision would also be retroactive, to include individuals
whose enrollment in an M+C plan was terminated between
December 31, 1998 and enactment of this legislation.
Section 621. Providing choice for skilled nursing facility
services under the Medicare+Choice program
Effective for M+C contracts entered into or renewed on or
after the date of enactment, the provision would require an
M+C plan to cover post-hospitalization skilled nursing care
through an enrollee's ``home skilled nursing facility'' if
the plan has a contract with the facility or if the home
facility agrees to accept substantially similar payment under
the same terms and conditions that apply to similarly
situated SNFs that are under contract with the plan. A ``home
skilled nursing facility'' is defined as (a) one in which the
enrollee resided at the time of the hospital admission that
triggered eligibility for SNF care upon discharge, or (b) is
the facility that is providing such services through the
continuing care retirement community in which the enrollee
resided at the time of hospital admission, or (c) is the
facility in which the spouse of the enrollee is residing at
the time of the enrollee's hospital discharge. The
beneficiary would be required to receive coverage for SNF
care at the home facility that is no less favorable than he
or she would receive otherwise in another SNF that has a
contract with the plan.
Home skilled nursing facilities are permitted to refuse to
accept Medicare+Choice enrollees or to impose conditions on
their acceptance of such an enrollee.
The provision would require the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission (MedPAC) to analyze and, within 2 years of
enactment, report to Congress on the effects of this
provision on the scope of benefits, administrative and other
costs incurred by M+C organizations, and the contractual
relationships between those plans and SNFs.
Section 622. Providing for accountability of Medicare+Choice
plans
The provision would mandate review of ACR submissions by
the HCFA Chief Actuary with respect to submissions for ACRs
filed for 2001 and thereafter.
Subtitle C--Other Managed Care Reforms
Section 631. 1-Year extension of Social Health Maintenance
Organization (SHMO) demonstration poject
The provision would extend SHMO waivers until 30 months
after the Secretary submits a report with a plan for
integration and transition of SHMOs into an option under the
M+C program. This 30-month extension would supersede the 18-
month extension in BBRA 99.
Section 632. Revised terms and conditions for extension of
Medicare Community Nursing Organization (CNO)
Demonstration Project
Effective as if enacted with BBRA99, the provision would
eliminate the requirement that CNO capitated payments be
reduced to ensure budget neutrality. Through December 2001,
the projects would operate under the same terms and
conditions applicable during 1999, but with modification to
the capitation rates. From October 1, 2000, through December
31, 2000, the capitation rates would be adjusted for
inflation since 1999 and for changes
[[Page 24545]]
in service packages, but reduced by 10 percent for in
projects in Arizona, Minnesota, and Illinois and by 15
percent in New York. In 2001, the rates would be determined
by actuarially adjusting the rates in the prior period for
inflation, utilization, and changes to the service package.
Adjustments would be made to case management fees for certain
frail enrollees, and requirements would be imposed to create
greater uniformity in clinical features among participating
sites and to improve quality and enrollee satisfaction.
By July 1, 2001, the Secretary would be required to submit
to the House Committees on Ways and Means and Commerce and
the Senate Committee on Finance a report evaluating the
projects for the period July 1997 through December 1999 and
for the extension period after September 30, 2000. A final
report would be required by July 1, 2002. The provision would
require certain methods to be used to compare spending per
beneficiary under the projects.
Section 633. Extension of Medicare municipal health services
demonstration projects
The provision would extend the Medicare municipal health
services demonstration projects for 2 additional years,
through December 31, 2004.
Section 634. Service area expansion for medicare cost
contracts during transition period
This provision would allow service area expansion for
Medicare cost contracts, if the request was submitted to the
Secretary before September 1, 2003.
TITLE VII--MEDICAID
Section 701. DSH payments
(a) Modifications to DSH allotments
For FY2001, the provision would set each state's DSH
allotment equal to its allotment for FY2000 increased by the
percentage change in the consumer price index for that year,
subject to a ceiling that would be equal to 12% of that
state's total medical assistance payments in that year.
For FY2002, the provision would set each state's DSH
allotment equal to its allotment for 2001 as determined
above, increased by the percentage change in the consumer
price index for FY2001, subject to a ceiling equal to 12% of
that state's total medical assistance payments in that year.
For extremely low DSH states, states whose FY1999 federal
and state DSH expenditures (as reported to HCFA on August 31,
2000) are greater than zero but less than one percent of the
state's total medical assistance expenditures during that
fiscal year, the DSH allotments for FY2001 would be equal to
1 percent of the state's total amount of expenditures under
their plan for such assistance during that fiscal year. For
subsequent fiscal years, the allotments for extremely low DSH
states would be equal to their allotment for the previous
year, increased by the percentage change in the consumer
price index for the previous year, subject to a ceiling of
12% of that state's total medical assistance payments in that
year.
Effective on the date that the final regulation for
Medicaid upper payment limits is published in the Federal
Register.
(b) Assuring identification of Medicaid managed care
patients
Effective for Medicaid managed care contracts in effect on
January 1, 2001, the provision would clarify that Medicaid
enrollees of managed care organizations and primary care case
management organizations are to be included for the purposes
of calculating the Medicaid inpatient utilization rate and
the low-income utilization rate. Also effective January 1,
2001, states must include in their MCO contracts information
that allows the state to determine which hospital services
are provided to Medicaid beneficiaries through managed care,
and would also require states to include a sponsorship code
for the managed care entity on the Medicaid beneficiary's
identification card.
(c) Application of Medicaid DSH transition rule to public
hospitals in all states
The provision would revise BBA97, as modified by BBRA 99,
so that the 175% hospital-specific limit, formerly applied
only to certain public hospitals in California, applies to
qualifying public hospitals in all states. The higher limit
would apply for two state fiscal years beginning on the first
day of the state fiscal year that begins after September 30,
2002 and ends on the last day of the succeeding state fiscal
year. Hospitals that would qualify for the higher hospital-
specific limit would be those owned or operated by a state
and meet the minimum federal requirements for
disproportionate share hospitals. The permanent ceiling for
California would not be affected.
For states operating under waivers approved under section
1115 of the Social Security Act, increased payments for
public hospitals under this provision would be included in
the baseline expenditure limit for the purposes of
determining budget neutrality.
(d) Assistance for certain public hospitals
The provision would provide additional funds for certain
public hospitals that are: owned or operated by a state (or
by an instrumentality or unit of government within a state);
are not receiving DSH payments as of October 1, 2000; and
have a low-income utilization rate in excess of 65% as of the
same date. Funds are provided in addition to the DSH
allotment for any state with eligible hospitals and the total
for all states cannot exceed the following amounts: $15
million for FY 2002; $176 million for 2003; $269 million for
2004; $330 million for 2005; and for FY 2006 and each fiscal
year thereafter; $375 million.
(e) DSH payment accountability standards
The provision would require the Secretary to implement
accountability standards to ensure that DSH payments are used
to reimburse States and hospitals that are eligible for such
payments and are otherwise in accordance with Medicaid
statutory requirements.
Section 702. New prospective payment system for federally-
qualified health centers and rural health clinics
The provision would create a new Medicaid prospective
payment system for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs)
and rural health centers (RHCs) beginning in FY2001. In
FY2001 existing FQHCs and RHCs would be paid per visit
payments equal to 100% of the average costs incurred during
1999 and 2000 adjusted to take into account any increase or
decrease in the scope of services furnished. For entities
first qualifying as FQHCs or RHCs after 2000, the per visit
payments would begin in the first year that the center or
clinic attains qualification and would be based on 100% of
the costs incurred during that year based on the rates
established for similar centers or clinics with similar
caseloads in the same adjacent geographic area. In the
absence of such similar centers or clinics, the methodology
would be based on that used for developing rates for
established FQHCs or RHCs or a methodology or reasonable
specifications as established by the Secretary. For each
fiscal year thereafter, per visit payments for all FQHCs and
RHCs would be equal to amounts for the preceding fiscal year
increased by the percentage increase in the Medicare Economic
Index applicable to primary care services for that fiscal
year, and adjusted for any increase or decrease in the scope
of services furnished during that fiscal year. In managed
care contracts, States must make supplemental payments to the
center or clinic that would be equal to the difference
between contracted amounts and the cost-based amounts. Those
payments would be paid on a schedule mutually agreed to by
the State and the FQHC or RHC. Alternative payment methods
would be permitted only when payments are at least equal to
amounts otherwise provided.
The provision would also direct the Comptroller General to
provide for a study on how to rebase or refine cost payment
methods for the services of FQHCs and RHCs. The report would
be due to Congress no later than 4 years after the date of
enactment.
Section 703. Streamlined approval of continued state-wide
1115 Medicaid waivers
The provision would define the process for submitting
requests for and receiving extensions of Medicaid
demonstration waivers authorized under Section 1115 of the
Social Security Act which have already received initial 3-
year extensions. It would require each state requesting such
an extension to submit an application at least 120 days prior
to the expiration date of the existing waiver. No later than
45 days after the Secretary receives such application, the
Secretary would be required to notify the State if she
intends to review the existing terms and conditions of the
project and would inform the State of proposed changes in the
terms and conditions of the waiver. If the Secretary fails to
provide such notification, the request would be deemed
approved. During the 30-day period beginning after the
Secretary provides the proposed terms and conditions to the
state, those terms and conditions would be negotiated. No
later than 120 days after the date that the request for
extension was submitted (or such later date as agreed to by
the chief executive officer of the State) the Secretary would
be required to approve the application subject to the agreed
upon terms and conditions or, in the absence of an agreement,
such terms and conditions that are determined by the
Secretary to be reasonably consistent with the overall
objective of the waiver, or disapprove the application. If
the waiver is not approved or disapproved during this period,
the request would be deemed approved in the terms and
conditions as have been agreed to (if any) by the Secretary
and the State. Approvals would be for periods not to exceed 3
years and would be subject to the final reporting and
evaluation requirements in current law.
Section 704. Medicaid county-organized health systems
The provision would allow the current exemption for certain
Health Insuring Organizations (HIOs) from certain Medicaid
HMO contracting requirements to apply as long as no more than
14% of all Medicaid beneficiaries in the state are enrolled
in those HIOs. This provision would be effective as if
included in the enactment of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985.
Sec. 705. Deadline for issuance of final regulation relating
to Medicaid upper payment limits
The provision would require the Secretary to issue final
regulations governing upper payment limits no later than
December 31,
[[Page 24546]]
2000. It also requires that the final regulation establish a
separate UPL for non-state-owned or operated government
facilities based on the proposed rule described above.
The provision also requires the final regulation to
stipulate a third set of rules governing the transition
period for certain states. This additional set of rules would
apply to states with payment arrangements approved or in
effect on or before October 1, 1992, or under which claims
for federal matching were paid on or before that date, and
for which such payments exceed the UPLs established under the
final regulation. For these states, a 6-year transition
period would apply, beginning with the period that begins on
the first state fiscal year that starts after September 30,
2002 and ends on September 30, 2008. For each year during the
transition period, applicable states must reduce excess
payments by 15%. Full compliance with final regulations is
required by October 1, 2008.
Section 706. Alaska FMAP
The provision would change the formula for calculating the
state percentage and thus the federal matching percentage for
Alaska for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. The state
percentage for Alaska would be calculated by using an
adjusted per capita income instead of the per capita income
generally used. The adjusted per capita income for Alaska
would be calculated as the three year average per capita
income for the state divided by 1.05.
TITLE VIII--STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM
Section 801. Special rule for redistribution and availability
of unused fiscal year 1998 and 1999 SCHIP allotments
The provision would establish a new method for distributing
unspent FY1998 and FY1999 allotments. States that use all
their SCHIP allotments (for each of those years) would
receive an amount equal to estimated spending in excess of
their original exhausted allotment. Each territory that
spends its original allotment would receive an amount that
bears the same ratio to 1.05% of the total amount available
for redistribution as the ratio of its original allotment to
the total allotment for all territories.
States that do not use all their SCHIP allotment would
receive an amount equal to the total amount of unspent funds,
less amounts distributed to states that fully exhausted their
original allotments, multiplied by the ratio of a state's
unspent original allotment to the total amount of unspent
funds. States may use up to 10% of the retained FY1998 funds
for outreach activities.
To calculate the amounts available for redistribution in
each formula described above, the Secretary would use amounts
reported by states not later than November 30 of the relevant
fiscal year on HCFA Form 64 or HCFA Form 21, as approved by
the Secretary. Redistributed funds would be available through
the end of FY2002.
Section 802. Authority to pay Medicaid expansion SCHIP costs
from title XXI appropriation
This provision provides a technical accounting
clarification requested by the Health Care Financing
Administration. It would authorize the payment of the costs
of SCHIP Medicaid expansions and costs of benefits provided
during periods of presumptive eligibility from the SCHIP
appropriation rather than from the Medicaid appropriation,
with a subsequent offset. In addition, the provision would
codify proposed rules regarding the order of payments for
benefits and administrative costs from state-specific SCHIP
allotments.
TITLE IX--OTHER PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--PACE Program
Section 901. Extension of transition for current waivers
The provision would permit the Secretary to continue to
operate the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly
(PACE) under waivers for a period of 36 months (rather than
24 months), and States may do so for 4 years (rather than 3
years). OBRA 86 required the Secretary to grant waivers of
certain Medicare and Medicaid requirements to not more than
10 public or non-profit private community-based organizations
to provide health and long-term care services on a capitated
basis to frail elderly persons at risk of
institutionalization. BBA 97 established PACE as a permanent
provider under Medicare and as a special benefit under
Medicaid.
Section 902. Continuing of certain operating arrangements
permitted
If prior to becoming a permanent component of Medicare, a
PACE demonstration project had contractual or other operating
arrangements that are not recognized under permanent program
regulations, the provision would require the Secretary, in
consultation with the state agency, to permit it to continue
under such arrangements as long as it is consistent with the
objectives of the PACE program.
Section 903. Flexibility in exercising waiver authority
The provision would enable the Secretary to exercise
authority to modify or waive Medicare or Medicaid
requirements to respond to the needs of PACE programs related
to employment and the use of community care physicians. The
Secretary must approve requests for such waivers within 90
days of the date the request for waiver is received.
Subtitle B--Outreach to Eligible Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries
Section 911. Outreach on availability of medicare cost-
sharing assistance to eligible low-income Medicare
beneficiaries
The provision would require the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration to conduct outreach efforts to
identify individuals who may be eligible for Medicaid payment
of Medicare cost sharing and to notify these persons of the
availability of such assistance. The Commissioner would also
be required to furnish, at least annually, a list of such
individuals who reside in each state to that state's agency
responsible for administering the Medicaid program as well as
to any other appropriate state agency. The list should
include the name and address, and whether such individuals
have experienced reductions in Social Security benefits. The
provision would also require the General Accounting Office to
conduct a study of the impact of the outreach activities of
the Commissioner to submit to Congress no later than 18
months after such outreach begins. The provision would be
effective one year after date of enactment.
Subtitle C--Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
Section 921. Increase in authorization of appropriations for
the maternal and child health services block grant
The provision would increase the authorization of
appropriations for the Maternal and Child Health Services
Block Grant under Title V from $705,000,000 to $850,000,000
for fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter.
Subtitle D--Diabetes
Section 931. Increase in appropriations for special diabetes
programs for type I diabetes and Indians
The provision would extend for 1 year, to FY2003, the
authority for grants to be made for both the Special Diabetes
Program for Type I Diabetes and for the Special Diabetes
Programs for Indians under the Public Health Service Act. The
provision would also expand funding available for these
programs. For each grant program, the provision would
increase total funding to $100 million each for FY2001,
FY2002 and FY2003. For FY2001 and FY2002, $30 million of the
$100 million for each program would be transferred from SCHIP
as set forth in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; the
remaining $70 million would be drawn from the Treasury out of
funds not otherwise appropriated. In FY2003, the entire $100
million would be drawn from the Treasury out of funds not
otherwise appropriated. In addition, the provision would
extend the due date on final evaluation reports for these two
grant programs from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2003.
Section 932. Appropriations for Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief
Fund
This provision provides for a direct appropriation of $475
million for FY 2001. Funds would be available until expended.
pain relief promotion act of 2000
The conference agreement would enact the provisions of H.R.
5544, as introduced on October 25, 2000. The text of that
bill follow:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Pain Relief Promotion Act of
2000.''
SECTION 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) in the first decade of the new millennium there should
be a new emphasis on pain management and palliative care;
(2) the use of certain narcotics and other drugs or
substances with a potential for abuse is strictly regulated
under the Controlled Substances Act;
(3) the dispensing and distribution of certain controlled
substances by properly registered practitioners for
legitimate medical purposes are permitted under the
Controlled Substances Act and implementing regulations;
(4) the dispensing or distribution of certain controlled
substances for the purpose of relieving pain and discomfort
even if it increases the risk of death is a legitimate
medical purpose and is permissible under the Controlled
Substances Act;
(5) inadequate treatment of pain, especially for chronic
diseases and conditions, irreversible diseases such as
cancer, and end-of-life care, is a serious public health
problem affecting hundreds of thousands of patients every
year; physicians should not hesitate to dispense or
distribute controlled substances when medically indicated for
these conditions; and
(6) for the reasons set forth in section 101 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801), the dispensing and
distribution of controlled substances for any purpose affect
interstate commerce.
TITLE I--PROMOTING PAIN MANAGEMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE
SEC. 101. ACTIVITIES OF AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND
QUALITY.
Part A of title IX of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 299 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
[[Page 24547]]
SEC. 903. PROGRAM FOR PAIN MANAGEMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE
RESEARCH AND QUALITY.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (e) and (f) of
section 902, the Director shall carry out a program to
accomplish the following:
(1) Promote and advance scientific understanding of pain
management and palliative care.
(2) Collect and disseminate protocols and evidence-based
practices regarding, pain management and palliative care,
with priority given to pain management for terminally ill
patients, and make such information available to public and
private health care programs and providers, health
professions schools, and hospices, and to the general public.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``pain
management and palliative care'' means--
(1) the active, total care of patients whose disease or
medical condition is not responsive to curative treatment or
whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced
disease; and
(2) the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and management of
primary and secondary pain, whether acute, chronic,
persistent, intractable, or associated with the end of life;
the purpose of which is to diagnose and alleviate pain and
other distressing signs and symptoms and to enhance the
quality of life, not to hasten or postpone death.
SEC. 102. ACTIVITIES OF HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Part D of title VII of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 294 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 754 through 757 as sections
755 through 758, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 753 the following:
SEC. 754. PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN PAIN
MANAGEMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,
may award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to
health professions schools, hospices, and other public and
private entities for the development and implementation of
programs to provide education and training to health care
professionals in pain management and palliative care.
(b) Priority.--In making awards under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall give priority to awards for the
implementation of programs under such subsection.
(c) Certain Topics.--An award may be made under subsection
(a) only if the applicant for the award agrees that the
program to be carried out with the award will include
information and education on--
(1) means for diagnosing and alleviating pain and other
distressing signs and symptoms of patients, especially
terminally ill patients, including the medically appropriate
use of controlled substances;
(2) applicable laws on controlled substances, including
laws permitting health care professionals to dispense or
administer controlled substances as needed to relieve pain
even in cases where such efforts may unintentionally increase
the risk of death; and
(3) recent findings, developments, and improvements in the
provision of pain management and palliative care.
(d) Program Sites.--Education and training under subsection
(a) may be provided at or through health professions schools,
residency training programs and other graduate programs in
the health professions, entities that provide continuing
medical education, hospices, and such other programs or sites
as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(e) Evaluation of Programs.--The Secretary shall (directly
or through grants or contracts) provide for the evaluation of
programs implemented under subsection (a) in order to
determine the effect of such programs on knowledge and
practice regarding pain management and palliative care.
(f) Peer Review Groups.--In carrying out section 799(f)
with respect to this section, the Secretary shall ensure that
the membership of each peer review group involved includes
individuals with expertise and experience in pain management
and palliative care for the population of patients whose
needs are to be served by the program.
(g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``pain
management and palliative care'' means--
(1) the active, total care of patients whose disease or
medical condition is not responsive to curative treatment or
whose prognosis is limited due to progressive, far-advanced
disease; and
(2) the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and management of
primary and secondary pain, whether acute, chronic,
persistent, intractable, or associated with the end of life:
the purpose of which is to diagnose and alleviate pain and
other distressing signs and symptoms and to enhance the
quality of life, not to hasten or postpone death.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations; Allocation.--
(1) In general.--Section 758 of the Public Health Services
Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this section) is
amended, in subsection (b)(1)(C), by striking ``sections 753,
754, and 755'' and inserting ``sections 753, 754, 755, and
756''.
(2) Amount.--With respect to section 758 of the Public
Health Service Act (as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of
this section), the dollar amount specified in subsection
(b)(1)(C) of such section is deemed to be increased by
$5,000,000.
SEC. 103. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE II--USE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES ACT
SEC. 201. REINFORCING EXISTING STANDARD FOR LEGITIMATE USE OF
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
(a) In General.--Section 303 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 823) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
(i)(1) For purposes of this Act and any regulations to
implement this Act, alleviating pain or discomfort in the
usual course of professional practice is a legitimate medical
purpose for the dispensing, distributing, or administering of
a controlled substance that is consistent with public health
and safety, even if the use of such a substance may increase
the risk of death. Nothing in this section authorizes
intentionally dispensing, distributing, or administering a
controlled substance for the purpose of causing death or
assisting another person in causing death.
(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in
determining whether a registration is consistent with the
public interest under this Act, the Attorney General shall
give no force and effect to State law authorizing or
permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia.
(B) Paragraph (2) applies only to conduct occurring after
the date of enactment of this subsection.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to alter
the roles of the Federal and State governments in regulating
the practice of medicine. Regardless of whether the Attorney
General determines pursuant to this section that the
registration of a practitioner is inconsistent with the
public interest, it remains solely within the discretion of
State authorities to determine whether action should be taken
with respect to the State professional license of the
practitioner or State prescribing privileges.
(4) Nothing in the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 2000
(including the amendments made by such Act) shall be
construed--
(A) to modify the Federal requirements that a controlled
substance be dispensed only for a legitimate medical purpose
pursuant to paragraph (1); or
(B) to provide the Attorney General with the authority to
issue national standards for pain management and palliative
care clinical practice, research, or quality;
except that the Attorney General may take such other actions
as may be necessary to enforce this Act.
(b) Pain Relief.--Section 304(c) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(c) Before'' and inserting the following:
(c) Procedures.--
(1) Order to show cause.--Before; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
(2) Burden of proof.--At any proceeding under paragraph
(1), where the order to show cause is based on the alleged
intentions of the applicant or registrant to cause or assist
in causing death, and the practitioner claims a defense under
paragraph (1) of section 303(i), the Attorney General shall
have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence,
that the practitioner's intent was to dispense, distribute,
or administer a controlled substance for the purpose of
causing death or assisting another person in causing death.
In meeting such burden, it shall not be sufficient to prove
that the applicant or registrant knew that the use of
controlled substance may increase the risk of death.
SEC. 202. EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.
Section 502(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
872(a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and'' and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
(7) educational and training programs for Federal, State,
and local personnel, incorporating recommendations, subject
to the provisions of subsection (e) and (f) of section 902 of
the Public Health Service Act, by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, on the means by which investigation and
enforcement actions by law enforcement personnel may better
accommodate the necessary and legitimate use of controlled
substances in pain management and palliative care.
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to alter the
roles of the Federal and State governments in regulating the
practice of medicine.
SEC. 203. FUNDING AUTHORITY.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the operation
of the diversion control fee account program of the Drug
Enforcement Administration shall be construed to include
carrying out section 303(i) of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 823(i)), as added by this Act, and subsections
(a)(4) and (c)(2) of section 304 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 824), as amended by this Act.
SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
small business reauthorization act of 2000
The conference agreement would enact the provisions of H.R.
5545, as introduced on October 25, 2000. The text of that
bill follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Small
Business Reauthorization Act of 2000''.
[[Page 24548]]
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings.
Sec. 103. Extension of SBIR program.
Sec. 104. Annual report.
Sec. 105. Third phase assistance.
Sec. 106. Report on programs for annual performance plan.
Sec. 107. Output and outcome data.
Sec. 108. National Research Council reports.
Sec. 109. Federal agency expenditures for the SBIR program.
Sec. 110. Policy directive modifications.
Sec. 111. Federal and State technology partnership program.
Sec. 112. Mentoring networks.
Sec. 113. Simplified reporting requirements.
Sec. 114. Rural outreach program extension.
TITLE II--BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAMS
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Levels of participation.
Sec. 203. Loan amounts.
Sec. 204. Interest on defaulted loans.
Sec. 205. Prepayment of loans.
Sec. 206. Guarantee fees.
Sec. 207. Lease terms.
Sec. 208. Appraisals for loans secured by real property.
Sec. 209. Sale of guaranteed loans made for export purposes.
Sec. 210. Microloan program.
TITLE III--CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Women-owned businesses.
Sec. 303. Maximum debenture size.
Sec. 304. Fees.
Sec. 305. Premier certified lenders program.
Sec. 306. Sale of certain defaulted loans.
Sec. 307. Loan liquidation.
TITLE IV--CORRECTIONS TO THE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Definitions.
Sec. 403. Investment in small business investment companies.
Sec. 404. Subsidy fees.
Sec. 405. Distributions.
Sec. 406. Conforming amendment.
TITLE V--REAUTHORIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Reauthorization of small business programs.
Sec. 503. Additional reauthorizations.
Sec. 504. Cosponsorship.
TITLE VI--HUBZONE PROGRAM
Subtitle A--HUBZones in Native America
Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. HUBZone small business concern.
Sec. 603. Qualified HUBZone small business concern.
Sec. 604. Other definitions.
Subtitle B--Other HUBZone Provisions
Sec. 611. Definitions.
Sec. 612. Eligible contracts.
Sec. 613. HUBZone redesignated areas.
Sec. 614. Community development.
Sec. 615. Reference corrections.
TITLE VII--NATIONAL WOMEN'S BUSINESS COUNCIL REAUTHORIZATION
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Membership of the Council.
Sec. 703. Repeal of procurement project.
Sec. 704. Studies and other research.
Sec. 705. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Loan application processing.
Sec. 802. Application of ownership requirements.
Sec. 803. Subcontracting preference for veterans.
Sec. 804. Small Business Development Center Program funding.
Sec. 805. Surety bonds.
Sec. 806. Size standards.
Sec. 807. Native Hawaiian organizations under section 8(a).
Sec. 808. National Veterans Business Development Corporation
correction.
Sec. 809. Private sector resources for SCORE.
Sec. 810. Contract data collection.
Sec. 811. Procurement program for women-owned small business concerns.
TITLE IX--COMMUNITY RENEWAL AND NEW MARKETS INITIATIVES
Sec. 901. New markets venture capital program.
Sec. 902. BusinessLINC grants and cooperative agreements.
TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM
SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Small
Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of
2000''.
SEC. 102. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the small business innovation research program
established under the Small Business Innovation Development
Act of 1982, and reauthorized by the Small Business Research
and Development Enhancement Act of 1992 (in this title
referred to as the ``SBIR program'') is highly successful in
involving small businesses in federally funded research and
development;
(2) the SBIR program made the cost-effective and unique
research and development capabilities possessed by the small
businesses of the Nation available to Federal agencies and
departments;
(3) the innovative goods and services developed by small
businesses that participated in the SBIR program have
produced innovations of critical importance in a wide variety
of high-technology fields, including biology, medicine,
education, and defense;
(4) the SBIR program is a catalyst in the promotion of
research and development, the commercialization of innovative
technology, the development of new products and services, and
the continued excellence of this Nation's high-technology
industries; and
(5) the continuation of the SBIR program will provide
expanded opportunities for one of the Nation's vital
resources, its small businesses, will foster invention,
research, and technology, will create jobs, and will increase
this Nation's competitiveness in international markets.
SEC. 103. EXTENSION OF SBIR PROGRAM.
Section 9(m) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(m))
is amended to read as follows:
``(m) Termination.--The authorization to carry out the
Small Business Innovation Research Program established under
this section shall terminate on September 30, 2008.''.
SEC. 104. ANNUAL REPORT.
Section 9(b)(7) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638(b)(7)) is amended by striking ``and the Committee on
Small Business of the House of Representatives'' and
inserting ``, and to the Committee on Science and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives,''.
SEC. 105. THIRD PHASE ASSISTANCE.
Section 9(e)(4)(C)(i) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638(e)(4)(C)(i)) is amended by striking ``; and'' and
inserting ``; or''.
SEC. 106. REPORT ON PROGRAMS FOR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN.
Section 9(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(g))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) include, as part of its annual performance plan as
required by subsections (a) and (b) of section 1115 of title
31, United States Code, a section on its SBIR program, and
shall submit such section to the Committee on Small Business
of the Senate, and the Committee on Science and the Committee
on Small Business of the House of Representatives; and''.
SEC. 107. OUTPUT AND OUTCOME DATA.
(a) Collection.--Section 9(g) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638(g)), as amended by section 106 of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(10) collect, and maintain in a common format in
accordance with subsection (v), such information from
awardees as is necessary to assess the SBIR program,
including information necessary to maintain the database
described in subsection (k).''.
(b) Report to Congress.--Section 9(b)(7) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(b)(7)), as amended by section 104
of this Act, is further amended by inserting before the
period at the end ``, including the data on output and
outcomes collected pursuant to subsections (g)(10) and
(o)(9), and a description of the extent to which Federal
agencies are providing in a timely manner information needed
to maintain the database described in subsection (k)''.
(c) Database.--Section 9(k) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 638(k)) is amended to read as follows:
``(k) Database.--
``(1) Public database.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of the Small Business Innovation Research
Program Reauthorization Act of 2000, the Administrator shall
develop, maintain, and make available to the public a
searchable, up-to-date, electronic database that includes--
``(A) the name, size, location, and an identifying number
assigned by the Administrator, of each small business concern
that has received a first phase or second phase SBIR award
from a Federal agency;
``(B) a description of each first phase or second phase
SBIR award received by that small business concern,
including--
``(i) an abstract of the project funded by the award,
excluding any proprietary information so identified by the
small business concern;
``(ii) the Federal agency making the award; and
``(iii) the date and amount of the award;
``(C) an identification of any business concern or
subsidiary established for the commercial application of a
product or service for which an SBIR award is made; and
``(D) information regarding mentors and Mentoring Networks,
as required by section 35(d).
``(2) Government database.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of the Small Business Innovation
Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000, the
Administrator, in consultation with Federal agencies required
to have an SBIR program pursuant to subsection (f)(1), shall
develop and maintain a database to be used solely for SBIR
program evaluation that--
``(A) contains for each second phase award made by a
Federal agency--
``(i) information collected in accordance with paragraph
(3) on revenue from the sale of new products or services
resulting from the research conducted under the award;
``(ii) information collected in accordance with paragraph
(3) on additional investment from any source, other than
first phase or second phase SBIR or STTR awards, to further
the research and development conducted under the award; and
[[Page 24549]]
``(iii) any other information received in connection with
the award that the Administrator, in conjunction with the
SBIR program managers of Federal agencies, considers relevant
and appropriate;
``(B) includes any narrative information that a small
business concern receiving a second phase award voluntarily
submits to further describe the outputs and outcomes of its
awards;
``(C) includes for each applicant for a first phase or
second phase award that does not receive such an award--
``(i) the name, size, and location, and an identifying
number assigned by the Administration;
``(ii) an abstract of the project; and
``(iii) the Federal agency to which the application was
made;
``(D) includes any other data collected by or available to
any Federal agency that such agency considers may be useful
for SBIR program evaluation; and
``(E) is available for use solely for program evaluation
purposes by the Federal Government or, in accordance with
policy directives issued by the Administration, by other
authorized persons who are subject to a use and nondisclosure
agreement with the Federal Government covering the use of the
database.
``(3) Updating information for database.--
``(A) In general.--A small business concern applying for a
second phase award under this section shall be required to
update information in the database established under this
subsection for any prior second phase award received by that
small business concern. In complying with this paragraph, a
small business concern may apportion sales or additional
investment information relating to more than one second phase
award among those awards, if it notes the apportionment for
each award.
``(B) Annual updates upon termination.--A small business
concern receiving a second phase award under this section
shall--
``(i) update information in the database concerning that
award at the termination of the award period; and
``(ii) be requested to voluntarily update such information
annually thereafter for a period of 5 years.
``(4) Protection of information.--Information provided
under paragraph (2) shall be considered privileged and
confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to
section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
``(5) Rule of construction.--Inclusion of information in
the database under this subsection shall not be considered to
be publication for purposes of subsection (a) or (b) of
section 102 of title 35, United States Code.''.
SEC. 108. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORTS.
(a) Study and Recommendations.--The head of each agency
with a budget of more than $50,000,000 for its SBIR program
for fiscal year 1999, in consultation with the Small Business
Administration, shall, not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, cooperatively enter into an
agreement with the National Academy of Sciences for the
National Research Council to--
(1) conduct a comprehensive study of how the SBIR program
has stimulated technological innovation and used small
businesses to meet Federal research and development needs,
including--
(A) a review of the value to the Federal research agencies
of the research projects being conducted under the SBIR
program, and of the quality of research being conducted by
small businesses participating under the program, including a
comparison of the value of projects conducted under the SBIR
program to those funded by other Federal research and
development expenditures;
(B) to the extent practicable, an evaluation of the
economic benefits achieved by the SBIR program, including the
economic rate of return, and a comparison of the economic
benefits, including the economic rate of return, achieved by
the SBIR program with the economic benefits, including the
economic rate of return, of other Federal research and
development expenditures;
(C) an evaluation of the noneconomic benefits achieved by
the SBIR program over the life of the program;
(D) a comparison of the allocation for fiscal year 2000 of
Federal research and development funds to small businesses
with such allocation for fiscal year 1983, and an analysis of
the factors that have contributed to such allocation; and
(E) an analysis of whether Federal agencies, in fulfilling
their procurement needs, are making sufficient effort to use
small businesses that have completed a second phase award
under the SBIR program; and
(2) make recommendations with respect to--
(A) measures of outcomes for strategic plans submitted
under section 306 of title 5, United States Code, and
performance plans submitted under section 1115 of title 31,
United States Code, of each Federal agency participating in
the SBIR program;
(B) whether companies who can demonstrate project
feasibility, but who have not received a first phase award,
should be eligible for second phase awards, and the potential
impact of such awards on the competitive selection process of
the program;
(C) whether the Federal Government should be permitted to
recoup some or all of its expenses if a controlling interest
in a company receiving an SBIR award is sold to a foreign
company or to a company that is not a small business concern;
(D) how to increase the use by the Federal Government in
its programs and procurements of technology-oriented small
businesses; and
(E) improvements to the SBIR program, if any are considered
appropriate.
(b) Participation by Small Business.--
(1) In general.--In a manner consistent with law and with
National Research Council study guidelines and procedures,
knowledgeable individuals from the small business community
with experience in the SBIR program shall be included--
(A) in any panel established by the National Research
Council for the purpose of performing the study conducted
under this section; and
(B) among those who are asked by the National Research
Council to peer review the study.
(2) Consultation.--To ensure that the concerns of small
business are appropriately considered under this subsection,
the National Research Council shall consult with and consider
the views of the Office of Technology and the Office of
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and other
interested parties, including entities, organizations, and
individuals actively engaged in enhancing or developing the
technological capabilities of small business concerns.
(c) Progress Reports.--The National Research Council shall
provide semiannual progress reports on the study conducted
under this section to the Committee on Science and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives,
and to the Committee on Small Business of the Senate.
(d) Report.--The National Research Council shall transmit
to the heads of agencies entering into an agreement under
this section and to the Committee on Science and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives,
and to the Committee on Small Business of the Senate--
(1) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, a report including the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a)(1) and recommendations made
under subsection (a)(2); and
(2) not later than 6 years after that date of enactment, an
update of such report.
SEC. 109. FEDERAL AGENCY EXPENDITURES FOR THE SBIR PROGRAM.
Section 9(i) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(i))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``(i) Each Federal'' and inserting the
following:
``(i) Annual Reporting.--
``(1) In general.--Each Federal''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Calculation of extramural budget.--
``(A) Methodology.--Not later than 4 months after the date
of enactment of each appropriations Act for a Federal agency
required by this section to have an SBIR program, the Federal
agency shall submit to the Administrator a report, which
shall include a description of the methodology used for
calculating the amount of the extramural budget of that
Federal agency.
``(B) Administrator's analysis.--The Administrator shall
include an analysis of the methodology received from each
Federal agency referred to in subparagraph (A) in the report
required by subsection (b)(7).''.
SEC. 110. POLICY DIRECTIVE MODIFICATIONS.
Section 9(j) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(j))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Additional modifications.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of enactment of the Small Business Innovation
Research Program Reauthorization Act of 2000, the
Administrator shall modify the policy directives issued
pursuant to this subsection--
``(A) to clarify that the rights provided for under
paragraph (2)(A) apply to all Federal funding awards under
this section, including the first phase (as described in
subsection (e)(4)(A)), the second phase (as described in
subsection (e)(4)(B)), and the third phase (as described in
subsection (e)(4)(C));
``(B) to provide for the requirement of a succinct
commercialization plan with each application for a second
phase award that is moving toward commercialization;
``(C) to require agencies to report to the Administration,
not less frequently than annually, all instances in which an
agency pursued research, development, or production of a
technology developed by a small business concern using an
award made under the SBIR program of that agency, and
determined that it was not practicable to enter into a
follow-on non-SBIR program funding agreement with the small
business concern, which report shall include, at a minimum--
``(i) the reasons why the follow-on funding agreement with
the small business concern was not practicable;
``(ii) the identity of the entity with which the agency
contracted to perform the research, development, or
production; and
``(iii) a description of the type of funding agreement
under which the research, development, or production was
obtained; and
``(D) to implement subsection (v), including establishing
standardized procedures for the provision of information
pursuant to subsection (k)(3).''.
SEC. 111. FEDERAL AND STATE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) programs to foster economic development among small
high-technology firms vary widely among the States;
(2) States that do not aggressively support the development
of small high-technology firms, including participation by
small business concerns
[[Page 24550]]
in the SBIR program, are at a competitive disadvantage in
establishing a business climate that is conducive to
technology development; and
(3) building stronger national, State, and local support
for science and technology research in these disadvantaged
States will expand economic opportunities in the United
States, create jobs, and increase the competitiveness of the
United States in the world market.
(b) Federal and State Technology Partnership Program.--The
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 34 as section 36; and
(2) by inserting after section 33 the following:
``SEC. 34. FEDERAL AND STATE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section and section 35, the
following definitions apply:
``(1) Applicant.--The term `applicant' means an entity,
organization, or individual that submits a proposal for an
award or a cooperative agreement under this section.
``(2) Business advice and counseling.--The term `business
advice and counseling' means providing advice and assistance
on matters described in section 35(c)(2)(B) to small business
concerns to guide them through the SBIR and STTR program
process, from application to award and successful completion
of each phase of the program.
``(3) FAST program.--The term `FAST program' means the
Federal and State Technology Partnership Program established
under this section.
``(4) Mentor.--The term `mentor' means an individual
described in section 35(c)(2).
``(5) Mentoring network.--The term `Mentoring Network'
means an association, organization, coalition, or other
entity (including an individual) that meets the requirements
of section 35(c).
``(6) Recipient.--The term `recipient' means a person that
receives an award or becomes party to a cooperative agreement
under this section.
``(7) SBIR program.--The term `SBIR program' has the same
meaning as in section 9(e)(4).
``(8) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
``(9) STTR program.--The term `STTR program' has the same
meaning as in section 9(e)(6).
``(b) Establishment of Program.--The Administrator shall
establish a program to be known as the Federal and State
Technology Partnership Program, the purpose of which shall be
to strengthen the technological competitiveness of small
business concerns in the States.
``(c) Grants and Cooperative Agreements.--
``(1) Joint review.--In carrying out the FAST program under
this section, the Administrator and the SBIR program managers
at the National Science Foundation and the Department of
Defense shall jointly review proposals submitted by
applicants and may make awards or enter into cooperative
agreements under this section based on the factors for
consideration set forth in paragraph (2), in order to enhance
or develop in a State--
``(A) technology research and development by small business
concerns;
``(B) technology transfer from university research to
technology-based small business concerns;
``(C) technology deployment and diffusion benefiting small
business concerns;
``(D) the technological capabilities of small business
concerns through the establishment or operation of consortia
comprised of entities, organizations, or individuals,
including--
``(i) State and local development agencies and entities;
``(ii) representatives of technology-based small business
concerns;
``(iii) industries and emerging companies;
``(iv) universities; and
``(v) small business development centers; and
``(E) outreach, financial support, and technical assistance
to technology-based small business concerns participating in
or interested in participating in an SBIR program, including
initiatives--
``(i) to make grants or loans to companies to pay a portion
or all of the cost of developing SBIR proposals;
``(ii) to establish or operate a Mentoring Network within
the FAST program to provide business advice and counseling
that will assist small business concerns that have been
identified by FAST program participants, program managers of
participating SBIR agencies, the Administration, or other
entities that are knowledgeable about the SBIR and STTR
programs as good candidates for the SBIR and STTR programs,
and that would benefit from mentoring, in accordance with
section 35;
``(iii) to create or participate in a training program for
individuals providing SBIR outreach and assistance at the
State and local levels; and
``(iv) to encourage the commercialization of technology
developed through SBIR program funding.
``(2) Selection considerations.--In making awards or
entering into cooperative agreements under this section, the
Administrator and the SBIR program managers referred to in
paragraph (1)--
``(A) may only consider proposals by applicants that intend
to use a portion of the Federal assistance provided under
this section to provide outreach, financial support, or
technical assistance to technology-based small business
concerns participating in or interested in participating in
the SBIR program; and
``(B) shall consider, at a minimum--
``(i) whether the applicant has demonstrated that the
assistance to be provided would address unmet needs of small
business concerns in the community, and whether it is
important to use Federal funding for the proposed activities;
``(ii) whether the applicant has demonstrated that a need
exists to increase the number or success of small high-
technology businesses in the State, as measured by the number
of first phase and second phase SBIR awards that have
historically been received by small business concerns in the
State;
``(iii) whether the projected costs of the proposed
activities are reasonable;
``(iv) whether the proposal integrates and coordinates the
proposed activities with other State and local programs
assisting small high-technology firms in the State; and
``(v) the manner in which the applicant will measure the
results of the activities to be conducted.
``(3) Proposal limit.--Not more than 1 proposal may be
submitted for inclusion in the FAST program under this
section to provide services in any one State in any 1 fiscal
year.
``(4) Process.--Proposals and applications for assistance
under this section shall be in such form and subject to such
procedures as the Administrator shall establish.
``(d) Cooperation and Coordination.--In carrying out the
FAST program under this section, the Administrator shall
cooperate and coordinate with--
``(1) Federal agencies required by section 9 to have an
SBIR program; and
``(2) entities, organizations, and individuals actively
engaged in enhancing or developing the technological
capabilities of small business concerns, including--
``(A) State and local development agencies and entities;
``(B) State committees established under the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the National
Science Foundation (as established under section 113 of the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 1862g));
``(C) State science and technology councils; and
``(D) representatives of technology-based small business
concerns.
``(e) Administrative Requirements.--
``(1) Competitive basis.--Awards and cooperative agreements
under this section shall be made or entered into, as
applicable, on a competitive basis.
``(2) Matching requirements.--
``(A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of an
activity (other than a planning activity) carried out using
an award or under a cooperative agreement under this section
shall be--
``(i) 50 cents for each Federal dollar, in the case of a
recipient that will serve small business concerns located in
one of the 18 States receiving the fewest SBIR first phase
awards (as described in section 9(e)(4)(A));
``(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (B), 1 dollar for
each Federal dollar, in the case of a recipient that will
serve small business concerns located in one of the 16 States
receiving the greatest number of such SBIR first phase
awards; and
``(iii) except as provided in subparagraph (B), 75 cents
for each Federal dollar, in the case of a recipient that will
serve small business concerns located in a State that is not
described in clause (i) or (ii) that is receiving such SBIR
first phase awards.
``(B) Low-income areas.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of the activity carried out using an award or under a
cooperative agreement under this section shall be 50 cents
for each Federal dollar that will be directly allocated by a
recipient described in subparagraph (A) to serve small
business concerns located in a qualified census tract, as
that term is defined in section 42(d)(5)(C)(ii) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Federal dollars not so
allocated by that recipient shall be subject to the matching
requirements of subparagraph (A).
``(C) Types of funding.--The non-Federal share of the cost
of an activity carried out by a recipient shall be comprised
of not less than 50 percent cash and not more than 50 percent
of indirect costs and in-kind contributions, except that no
such costs or contributions may be derived from funds from
any other Federal program.
``(D) Rankings.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
Administrator shall reevaluate the ranking of a State once
every 2 fiscal years, beginning with fiscal year 2001, based
on the most recent statistics compiled by the Administrator.
``(3) Duration.--Awards may be made or cooperative
agreements entered into under this section for multiple
years, not to exceed 5 years in total.
``(f) Reports.--
``(1) Initial report.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of enactment of the Small Business Innovation Research
Program Reauthorization Act of 2000, the Administrator shall
prepare and submit to the Committee on Small Business of the
Senate and the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Small Business of the House of Representatives a report,
which shall include, with respect to the FAST program,
including Mentoring Networks--
``(A) a description of the structure and procedures of the
program;
``(B) a management plan for the program; and
[[Page 24551]]
``(C) a description of the merit-based review process to be
used in the program.
``(2) Annual reports.--The Administrator shall submit an
annual report to the Committee on Small Business of the
Senate and the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Small Business of the House of Representatives regarding--
``(A) the number and amount of awards provided and
cooperative agreements entered into under the FAST program
during the preceding year;
``(B) a list of recipients under this section, including
their location and the activities being performed with the
awards made or under the cooperative agreements entered into;
and
``(C) the Mentoring Networks and the mentoring database, as
provided for under section 35, including--
``(i) the status of the inclusion of mentoring information
in the database required by section 9(k); and
``(ii) the status of the implementation and description of
the usage of the Mentoring Networks.
``(g) Reviews by Inspector General.--
``(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the
Administration shall conduct a review of--
``(A) the extent to which recipients under the FAST program
are measuring the performance of the activities being
conducted and the results of such measurements; and
``(B) the overall management and effectiveness of the FAST
program.
``(2) Report.--During the first quarter of fiscal year
2004, the Inspector General of the Administration shall
submit a report to the Committee on Small Business of the
Senate and the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Small Business of the House of Representatives on the review
conducted under paragraph (1).
``(h) Program Levels.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out the FAST program, including Mentoring Networks,
under this section and section 35, $10,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
``(2) Mentoring database.--Of the total amount made
available under paragraph (1) for fiscal years 2001 through
2005, a reasonable amount, not to exceed a total of $500,000,
may be used by the Administration to carry out section 35(d).
``(i) Termination.--The authority to carry out the FAST
program under this section shall terminate on September 30,
2005.''.
(c) Coordination of Technology Development Programs.--
Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(u) Coordination of Technology Development Programs.--
``(1) Definition of technology development program.--In
this subsection, the term `technology development program'
means--
``(A) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research of the National Science Foundation, as established
under section 113 of the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1862g);
``(B) the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research of the Department of Defense;
``(C) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research of the Department of Energy;
``(D) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research of the Environmental Protection Agency;
``(E) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration;
``(F) the Institutional Development Award Program of the
National Institutes of Health; and
``(G) the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants
Program of the Department of Agriculture.
``(2) Coordination requirements.--Each Federal agency that
is subject to subsection (f) and that has established a
technology development program may, in each fiscal year,
review for funding under that technology development
program--
``(A) any proposal to provide outreach and assistance to 1
or more small business concerns interested in participating
in the SBIR program, including any proposal to make a grant
or loan to a company to pay a portion or all of the cost of
developing an SBIR proposal, from an entity, organization, or
individual located in--
``(i) a State that is eligible to participate in that
program; or
``(ii) a State described in paragraph (3); or
``(B) any proposal for the first phase of the SBIR program,
if the proposal, though meritorious, is not funded through
the SBIR program for that fiscal year due to funding
restraints, from a small business concern located in--
``(i) a State that is eligible to participate in a
technology development program; or
``(ii) a State described in paragraph (3).
``(3) Additionally eligible state.--A State referred to in
subparagraph (A)(ii) or (B)(ii) of paragraph (2) is a State
in which the total value of contracts awarded to small
business concerns under all SBIR programs is less than the
total value of contracts awarded to small business concerns
in a majority of other States, as determined by the
Administrator in biennial fiscal years, beginning with fiscal
year 2000, based on the most recent statistics compiled by
the Administrator.''.
SEC. 112. MENTORING NETWORKS.
The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended
by inserting after section 34, as added by section 111(b)(2)
of this Act, the following:
``SEC. 35. MENTORING NETWORKS.
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(1) the SBIR and STTR programs create jobs, increase
capacity for technological innovation, and boost
international competitiveness;
``(2) increasing the quantity of applications from all
States to the SBIR and STTR programs would enhance
competition for such awards and the quality of the completed
projects; and
``(3) mentoring is a natural complement to the FAST program
of reaching out to new companies regarding the SBIR and STTR
programs as an effective and low-cost way to improve the
likelihood that such companies will succeed in such programs
in developing and commercializing their research.
``(b) Authorization for Mentoring Networks.--The recipient
of an award or participant in a cooperative agreement under
section 34 may use a reasonable amount of such assistance for
the establishment of a Mentoring Network under this section.
``(c) Criteria for Mentoring Networks.--A Mentoring Network
established using assistance under section 34 shall--
``(1) provide business advice and counseling to high
technology small business concerns located in the State or
region served by the Mentoring Network and identified under
section 34(c)(1)(E)(ii) as potential candidates for the SBIR
or STTR programs;
``(2) identify volunteer mentors who--
``(A) are persons associated with a small business concern
that has successfully completed one or more SBIR or STTR
funding agreements; and
``(B) have agreed to guide small business concerns through
all stages of the SBIR or STTR program process, including
providing assistance relating to--
``(i) proposal writing;
``(ii) marketing;
``(iii) Government accounting;
``(iv) Government audits;
``(v) project facilities and equipment;
``(vi) human resources;
``(vii) third phase partners;
``(viii) commercialization;
``(ix) venture capital networking; and
``(x) other matters relevant to the SBIR and STTR programs;
``(3) have experience working with small business concerns
participating in the SBIR and STTR programs;
``(4) contribute information to the national database
referred to in subsection (d); and
``(5) agree to reimburse volunteer mentors for out-of-
pocket expenses related to service as a mentor under this
section.
``(d) Mentoring Database.--The Administrator shall--
``(1) include in the database required by section 9(k)(1),
in cooperation with the SBIR, STTR, and FAST programs,
information on Mentoring Networks and mentors participating
under this section, including a description of their areas of
expertise;
``(2) work cooperatively with Mentoring Networks to
maintain and update the database;
``(3) take such action as may be necessary to aggressively
promote Mentoring Networks under this section; and
``(4) fulfill the requirements of this subsection either
directly or by contract.''.
SEC. 113. SIMPLIFIED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as
amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(v) Simplified Reporting Requirements.--The Administrator
shall work with the Federal agencies required by this section
to have an SBIR program to standardize reporting requirements
for the collection of data from SBIR applicants and awardees,
including data for inclusion in the database under subsection
(k), taking into consideration the unique needs of each
agency, and to the extent possible, permitting the updating
of previously reported information by electronic means. Such
requirements shall be designed to minimize the burden on
small businesses.''.
SEC. 114. RURAL OUTREACH PROGRAM EXTENSION.
(a) Extension of Termination Date.--Section 501(b)(2) of
the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 (15 U.S.C. 638
note; 111 Stat. 2622) is amended by striking ``2001'' and
inserting ``2005''.
(b) Extension of Authorization of Appropriations.--Section
9(s)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(s)(2)) is
amended by striking ``for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, or
2001'' and inserting ``for each of the fiscal years 2000
through 2005,''.
TITLE II--BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAMS
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Loan
Improvement Act of 2000''.
SEC. 202. LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION.
Section 7(a)(2)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (i) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting
``$150,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (ii)--
(A) by striking ``80 percent'' and inserting ``85
percent''; and
(B) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''.
SEC. 203. LOAN AMOUNTS.
Section 7(a)(3)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``$750,000,'' and
inserting, ``$1,000,000 (or if the gross loan amount would
exceed $2,000,000),''.
[[Page 24552]]
SEC. 204. INTEREST ON DEFAULTED LOANS.
Section 7(a)(4)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(4)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Applicability.--Clauses (i) and (ii) shall not
apply to loans made on or after October 1, 2000.''.
SEC. 205. PREPAYMENT OF LOANS.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(4)) is further amended--
(1) by striking ``(4) Interest rates and fees.--'' and
inserting ``(4) Interest rates and prepayment charges.--'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Prepayment charges.--
``(i) In general.--A borrower who prepays any loan
guaranteed under this subsection shall remit to the
Administration a subsidy recoupment fee calculated in
accordance with clause (ii) if--
``(I) the loan is for a term of not less than 15 years;
``(II) the prepayment is voluntary;
``(III) the amount of prepayment in any calendar year is
more than 25 percent of the outstanding balance of the loan;
and
``(IV) the prepayment is made within the first 3 years
after disbursement of the loan proceeds.
``(ii) Subsidy recoupment fee.--The subsidy recoupment fee
charged under clause (i) shall be--
``(I) 5 percent of the amount of prepayment, if the
borrower prepays during the first year after disbursement;
``(II) 3 percent of the amount of prepayment, if the
borrower prepays during the second year after disbursement;
and
``(III) 1 percent of the amount of prepayment, if the
borrower prepays during the third year after disbursement.''.
SEC. 206. GUARANTEE FEES.
Section 7(a)(18) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(18)) is amended to read as follows:
``(18) Guarantee fees.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to each loan guaranteed
under this subsection (other than a loan that is repayable in
1 year or less), the Administration shall collect a guarantee
fee, which shall be payable by the participating lender, and
may be charged to the borrower, as follows:
``(i) A guarantee fee equal to 2 percent of the deferred
participation share of a total loan amount that is not more
than $150,000.
``(ii) A guarantee fee equal to 3 percent of the deferred
participation share of a total loan amount that is more than
$150,000, but not more than $700,000.
``(iii) A guarantee fee equal to 3.5 percent of the
deferred participation share of a total loan amount that is
more than $700,000.
``(B) Retention of certain fees.--Lenders participating in
the programs established under this subsection may retain not
more than 25 percent of a fee collected under subparagraph
(A)(i).''.
SEC. 207. LEASE TERMS.
Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a))
is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(28) Leasing.--In addition to such other lease
arrangements as may be authorized by the Administration, a
borrower may permanently lease to one or more tenants not
more than 20 percent of any property constructed with the
proceeds of a loan guaranteed under this subsection, if the
borrower permanently occupies and uses not less than 60
percent of the total business space in the property.''.
SEC. 208. APPRAISALS FOR LOANS SECURED BY REAL PROPERTY.
(a) Small Business Act.--Section 7(a) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(29) Real estate appraisals.--With respect to a loan
under this subsection that is secured by commercial real
property, an appraisal of such property by a State licensed
or certified appraiser--
``(A) shall be required by the Administration in connection
with any such loan for more than $250,000; or
``(B) may be required by the Administration or the lender
in connection with any such loan for $250,000 or less, if
such appraisal is necessary for appropriate evaluation of
creditworthiness.''.
(b) Small Business Investment Act of 1958.--Section
502(3)(E) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15
U.S.C. 696(3)(E)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The collateral'' and inserting the
following:
``(i) In general.--The collateral''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Appraisals.--With respect to commercial real
property provided by the small business concern as
collateral, an appraisal of the property by a State licensed
or certified appraiser--
``(I) shall be required by the Administration before
disbursement of the loan if the estimated value of that
property is more than $250,000; or
``(II) may be required by the Administration or the lender
before disbursement of the loan if the estimated value of
that property is $250,000 or less, and such appraisal is
necessary for appropriate evaluation of creditworthiness.''.
SEC. 209. SALE OF GUARANTEED LOANS MADE FOR EXPORT PURPOSES.
Section 5(f)(1)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
634(f)(1)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) each loan, except each loan made under section
7(a)(14), shall have been fully disbursed to the borrower
prior to any sale.''.
SEC. 210. MICROLOAN PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(m)) is amended--
(1) in paragraphs (1)(B)(iii) and (3)(E), by striking
``$25,000'' each place it appears and inserting ``$35,000'';
(2) in paragraphs (1)(A)(iii)(I), (3)(A)(ii), and
(4)(C)(i)(II), by striking ``$7,500'' each place it appears
and inserting ``$10,000'';
(3) in paragraph (3)(E), by striking ``$15,000'' and
inserting ``$20,000'';
(4) in paragraph (5)(A)--
(A) by striking ``25 grants'' and inserting ``55 grants'';
and
(B) by striking ``$125,000'' and inserting ``$200,000'';
(5) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ``$10,000'' and
inserting ``$15,000''; and
(6) in paragraph (7), by striking subparagraph (A) and
inserting the following:
``(A) Number of participants.--Under the program authorized
by this subsection, the Administration may fund, on a
competitive basis, not more than 300 intermediaries.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 7(m)(11)(B) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(m)(11)(B)) is amended by
striking ``$25,000'' and inserting ``$35,000''.
TITLE III--CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Certified Development
Company Program Improvements Act of 2000''.
SEC. 302. WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES.
Section 501(d)(3)(C) of the Small Business Investment Act
of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695(d)(3)(C)) is amended by inserting
before the comma ``or women-owned business development''.
SEC. 303. MAXIMUM DEBENTURE SIZE.
Section 502(2) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
(15 U.S.C. 696(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Loans made by the Administration under this section
shall be limited to $1,000,000 for each such identifiable
small business concern, except loans meeting the criteria
specified in section 501(d)(3), which shall be limited to
$1,300,000 for each such identifiable small business
concern.''.
SEC. 304. FEES.
Section 503(f) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
(15 U.S.C. 697(f)) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Effective Date.--The fees authorized by subsections
(b) and (d) shall apply to financings approved by the
Administration on or after October 1, 1996, but shall not
apply to financings approved by the Administration on or
after October 1, 2003.''.
SEC. 305. PREMIER CERTIFIED LENDERS PROGRAM.
Section 217(b) of the Small Business Administration
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-
403, 15 U.S.C. 697 note) (relating to section 508 of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958) is repealed.
SEC. 306. SALE OF CERTAIN DEFAULTED LOANS.
Section 508 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
(15 U.S.C. 697e) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``On a pilot program
basis, the'' and inserting ``The'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (d) through (i) as
subsections (e) through (j), respectively;
(3) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking ``subsection (f)'' and inserting ``subsection
(g)'';
(4) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking ``subsection (f)'' and inserting ``subsection
(g)''; and
(5) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Sale of Certain Defaulted Loans.--
``(1) Notice.--If, upon default in repayment, the
Administration acquires a loan guaranteed under this section
and identifies such loan for inclusion in a bulk asset sale
of defaulted or repurchased loans or other financings, it
shall give prior notice thereof to any certified development
company which has a contingent liability under this section.
The notice shall be given to the company as soon as possible
after the financing is identified, but not less than 90 days
before the date the Administration first makes any records on
such financing available for examination by prospective
purchasers prior to its offering in a package of loans for
bulk sale.
``(2) Limitations.--The Administration shall not offer any
loan described in paragraph (1) as part of a bulk sale unless
it--
``(A) provides prospective purchasers with the opportunity
to examine the Administration's records with respect to such
loan; and
``(B) provides the notice required by paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 307. LOAN LIQUIDATION.
(a) Liquidation and Foreclosure.--Title V of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 510. FORECLOSURE AND LIQUIDATION OF LOANS.
``(a) Delegation of Authority.--In accordance with this
section, the Administration shall delegate to any qualified
State or local development company (as defined in section
503(e)) that meets the eligibility requirements of subsection
(b)(1) the authority to foreclose and liquidate, or to
otherwise treat in accordance with this section, defaulted
loans in its portfolio that are funded with the proceeds of
debentures guaranteed by the Administration under section
503.
``(b) Eligibility for Delegation.--
``(1) Requirements.--A qualified State or local development
company shall be eligible for a delegation of authority under
subsection (a) if--
``(A) the company--
``(i) has participated in the loan liquidation pilot
program established by the Small Business
[[Page 24553]]
Programs Improvement Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 695 note), as in
effect on the day before promulgation of final regulations by
the Administration implementing this section;
``(ii) is participating in the Premier Certified Lenders
Program under section 508; or
``(iii) during the 3 fiscal years immediately prior to
seeking such a delegation, has made an average of not less
than 10 loans per year that are funded with the proceeds of
debentures guaranteed under section 503; and
``(B) the company--
``(i) has one or more employees--
``(I) with not less than 2 years of substantive, decision-
making experience in administering the liquidation and
workout of problem loans secured in a manner substantially
similar to loans funded with the proceeds of debentures
guaranteed under section 503; and
``(II) who have completed a training program on loan
liquidation developed by the Administration in conjunction
with qualified State and local development companies that
meet the requirements of this paragraph; or
``(ii) submits to the Administration documentation
demonstrating that the company has contracted with a
qualified third-party to perform any liquidation activities
and secures the approval of the contract by the
Administration with respect to the qualifications of the
contractor and the terms and conditions of liquidation
activities.
``(2) Confirmation.--On request the Administration shall
examine the qualifications of any company described in
subsection (a) to determine if such company is eligible for
the delegation of authority under this section. If the
Administration determines that a company is not eligible, the
Administration shall provide the company with the reasons for
such ineligibility.
``(c) Scope of Delegated Authority.--
``(1) In general.--Each qualified State or local
development company to which the Administration delegates
authority under section (a) may with respect to any loan
described in subsection (a)--
``(A) perform all liquidation and foreclosure functions,
including the purchase in accordance with this subsection of
any other indebtedness secured by the property securing the
loan, in a reasonable and sound manner according to
commercially accepted practices, pursuant to a liquidation
plan approved in advance by the Administration under
paragraph (2)(A);
``(B) litigate any matter relating to the performance of
the functions described in subparagraph (A), except that the
Administration may--
``(i) defend or bring any claim if--
``(I) the outcome of the litigation may adversely affect
the Administration's management of the loan program
established under section 502; or
``(II) the Administration is entitled to legal remedies not
available to a qualified State or local development company
and such remedies will benefit either the Administration or
the qualified State or local development company; or
``(ii) oversee the conduct of any such litigation; and
``(C) take other appropriate actions to mitigate loan
losses in lieu of total liquidation or foreclosures,
including the restructuring of a loan in accordance with
prudent loan servicing practices and pursuant to a workout
plan approved in advance by the Administration under
paragraph (2)(C).
``(2) Administration approval.--
``(A) Liquidation plan.--
``(i) In general.--Before carrying out functions described
in paragraph (1)(A), a qualified State or local development
company shall submit to the Administration a proposed
liquidation plan.
``(ii) Administration action on plan.--
``(I) Timing.--Not later than 15 business days after a
liquidation plan is received by the Administration under
clause (i), the Administration shall approve or reject the
plan.
``(II) Notice of no decision.--With respect to any plan
that cannot be approved or denied within the 15-day period
required by subclause (I), the Administration shall within
such period provide in accordance with subparagraph (E)
notice to the company that submitted the plan.
``(iii) Routine actions.--In carrying out functions
described in paragraph (1)(A), a qualified State or local
development company may undertake routine actions not
addressed in a liquidation plan without obtaining additional
approval from the Administration.
``(B) Purchase of indebtedness.--
``(i) In general.--In carrying out functions described in
paragraph (1)(A), a qualified State or local development
company shall submit to the Administration a request for
written approval before committing the Administration to the
purchase of any other indebtedness secured by the property
securing a defaulted loan.
``(ii) Administration action on request.--
``(I) Timing.--Not later than 15 business days after
receiving a request under clause (i), the Administration
shall approve or deny the request.
``(II) Notice of no decision.--With respect to any request
that cannot be approved or denied within the 15-day period
required by subclause (I), the Administration shall within
such period provide in accordance with subparagraph (E)
notice to the company that submitted the request.
``(C) Workout plan.--
``(i) In general.--In carrying out functions described in
paragraph (1)(C), a qualified State or local development
company shall submit to the Administration a proposed workout
plan.
``(ii) Administration action on plan.--
``(I) Timing.--Not later than 15 business days after a
workout plan is received by the Administration under clause
(i), the Administration shall approve or reject the plan.
``(II) Notice of no decision.--With respect to any workout
plan that cannot be approved or denied within the 15-day
period required by subclause (I), the Administration shall
within such period provide in accordance with subparagraph
(E) notice to the company that submitted the plan.
``(D) Compromise of indebtedness.--In carrying out
functions described in paragraph (1)(A), a qualified State or
local development company may--
``(i) consider an offer made by an obligor to compromise
the debt for less than the full amount owing; and
``(ii) pursuant to such an offer, release any obligor or
other party contingently liable, if the company secures the
written approval of the Administration.
``(E) Contents of notice of no decision.--Any notice
provided by the Administration under subparagraph
(A)(ii)(II), (B)(ii)(II), or (C)(ii)(II)--
``(i) shall be in writing;
``(ii) shall state the specific reason for the
Administration's inability to act on a plan or request;
``(iii) shall include an estimate of the additional time
required by the Administration to act on the plan or request;
and
``(iv) if the Administration cannot act because
insufficient information or documentation was provided by the
company submitting the plan or request, shall specify the
nature of such additional information or documentation.
``(3) Conflict of interest.--In carrying out functions
described in paragraph (1), a qualified State or local
development company shall take no action that would result in
an actual or apparent conflict of interest between the
company (or any employee of the company) and any third party
lender, associate of a third party lender, or any other
person participating in a liquidation, foreclosure, or loss
mitigation action.
``(d) Suspension or Revocation of Authority.--The
Administration may revoke or suspend a delegation of
authority under this section to any qualified State or local
development company, if the Administration determines that
the company--
``(1) does not meet the requirements of subsection (b)(1);
``(2) has violated any applicable rule or regulation of the
Administration or any other applicable law; or
``(3) fails to comply with any reporting requirement that
may be established by the Administration relating to carrying
out of functions described in paragraph (1).
``(e) Report.--
``(1) In general.--Based on information provided by
qualified State and local development companies and the
Administration, the Administration shall annually submit to
the Committees on Small Business of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate a report on the results of
delegation of authority under this section.
``(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include the following information:
``(A) With respect to each loan foreclosed or liquidated by
a qualified State or local development company under this
section, or for which losses were otherwise mitigated by the
company pursuant to a workout plan under this section--
``(i) the total cost of the project financed with the loan;
``(ii) the total original dollar amount guaranteed by the
Administration;
``(iii) the total dollar amount of the loan at the time of
liquidation, foreclosure, or mitigation of loss;
``(iv) the total dollar losses resulting from the
liquidation, foreclosure, or mitigation of loss; and
``(v) the total recoveries resulting from the liquidation,
foreclosure, or mitigation of loss, both as a percentage of
the amount guaranteed and the total cost of the project
financed.
``(B) With respect to each qualified State or local
development company to which authority is delegated under
this section, the totals of each of the amounts described in
clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).
``(C) With respect to all loans subject to foreclosure,
liquidation, or mitigation under this section, the totals of
each of the amounts described in clauses (i) through (v) of
subparagraph (A).
``(D) A comparison between--
``(i) the information provided under subparagraph (C) with
respect to the 12-month period preceding the date on which
the report is submitted; and
``(ii) the same information with respect to loans
foreclosed and liquidated, or otherwise treated, by the
Administration during the same period.
``(E) The number of times that the Administration has
failed to approve or reject a liquidation plan in accordance
with subparagraph (A)(i), a workout plan in accordance with
subparagraph (C)(i), or to approve or deny a request for
purchase of indebtedness under subparagraph (B)(i), including
specific information regarding the reasons for the
Administration's failure and any delays that resulted.''.
(b) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 150 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out section 510 of
the Small
[[Page 24554]]
Business Investment Act of 1958, as added by subsection (a)
of this section.
(2) Termination of pilot program.--Beginning on the date on
which final regulations are issued under paragraph (1),
section 204 of the Small Business Programs Improvement Act of
1996 (15 U.S.C. 695 note) shall cease to have effect.
TITLE IV--CORRECTIONS TO THE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Investment
Corrections Act of 2000''.
SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Small Business Concern.--Section 103(5)(A)(i) of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C.
662(5)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon at
the end the following: ``regardless of the allocation of
control during the investment period under any investment
agreement between the business concern and the entity making
the investment''.
(b) Long Term.--Section 103 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 662) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (15), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (16), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(17) the term `long term', when used in connection with
equity capital or loan funds invested in any small business
concern or smaller enterprise, means any period of time not
less than 1 year.''.
SEC. 403. INVESTMENT IN SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANIES.
Section 302(b) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
(15 U.S.C. 682(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) Notwithstanding'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Financial Institution Investments.--
``(1) Certain banks.--Notwithstanding''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Certain savings associations.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, any Federal savings association may
invest in any 1 or more small business investment companies,
or in any entity established to invest solely in small
business investment companies, except that in no event may
the total amount of such investments by any such Federal
savings association exceed 5 percent of the capital and
surplus of the Federal savings association.''.
SEC. 404. SUBSIDY FEES.
(a) Debentures.--Section 303(b) of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)) is amended by
striking ``plus an additional charge of 1 percent per annum
which shall be paid to and retained by the Administration''
and inserting ``plus, for debentures obligated after
September 30, 2000, an additional charge, in an amount
established annually by the Administration, of not more than
1 percent per year as necessary to reduce to zero the cost
(as defined in section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act
of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) to the Administration of purchasing
and guaranteeing debentures under this Act, which shall be
paid to and retained by the Administration''.
(b) Participating Securities.--Section 303(g)(2) of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(g)(2))
is amended by striking ``plus an additional charge of 1
percent per annum which shall be paid to and retained by the
Administration'' and inserting ``plus, for participating
securities obligated after September 30, 2000, an additional
charge, in an amount established annually by the
Administration, of not more than 1 percent per year as
necessary to reduce to zero the cost (as defined in section
502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a))
to the Administration of purchasing and guaranteeing
participating securities under this Act, which shall be paid
to and retained by the Administration''.
SEC. 405. DISTRIBUTIONS.
Section 303(g)(8) of the Small Business Investment Act of
1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(g)(8)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``subchapter s corporation'' and inserting
``subchapter S corporation'';
(2) by striking ``the end of any calendar quarter based on
a quarterly'' and inserting ``any time during any calendar
quarter based on an''; and
(3) by striking ``quarterly distributions for a calendar
year,'' and inserting ``interim distributions for a calendar
year,''.
SEC. 406. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 310(c)(4) of the Small Business Investment Act of
1958 (15 U.S.C. 687b(c)(4)) is amended by striking ``five
years'' and inserting ``1 year''.
TITLE V--REAUTHORIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Small Business Programs
Reauthorization Act of 2000''.
SEC. 502. REAUTHORIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS.
Section 20 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Fiscal Year 2001.--
``(1) Program levels.--The following program levels are
authorized for fiscal year 2001:
``(A) For the programs authorized by this Act, the
Administration is authorized to make--
``(i) $45,000,000 in technical assistance grants as
provided in section 7(m); and
``(ii) $60,000,000 in direct loans, as provided in 7(m).
``(B) For the programs authorized by this Act, the
Administration is authorized to make $19,050,000,000 in
deferred participation loans and other financings. Of such
sum, the Administration is authorized to make--
``(i) $14,500,000,000 in general business loans as provided
in section 7(a);
``(ii) $4,000,000,000 in financings as provided in section
7(a)(13) of this Act and section 504 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958;
``(iii) $500,000,000 in loans as provided in section
7(a)(21); and
``(iv) $50,000,000 in loans as provided in section 7(m).
``(C) For the programs authorized by title III of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration is
authorized to make--
``(i) $2,500,000,000 in purchases of participating
securities; and
``(ii) $1,500,000,000 in guarantees of debentures.
``(D) For the programs authorized by part B of title IV of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration
is authorized to enter into guarantees not to exceed
$4,000,000,000 of which not more than 50 percent may be in
bonds approved pursuant to section 411(a)(3) of that Act.
``(E) The Administration is authorized to make grants or
enter cooperative agreements for a total amount of $5,000,000
for the Service Corps of Retired Executives program
authorized by section 8(b)(1).
``(2) Additional authorizations.--
``(A) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administration for fiscal year 2001 such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act not
elsewhere provided for, including administrative expenses and
necessary loan capital for disaster loans pursuant to section
7(b), and to carry out title IV of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, including salaries and expenses of
the Administration.
``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
paragraph, for fiscal year 2001--
``(i) no funds are authorized to be used as loan capital
for the loan program authorized by section 7(a)(21) except by
transfer from another Federal department or agency to the
Administration, unless the program level authorized for
general business loans under paragraph (1)(B)(i) is fully
funded; and
``(ii) the Administration may not approve loans on its own
behalf or on behalf of any other Federal department or
agency, by contract or otherwise, under terms and conditions
other than those specifically authorized under this Act or
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, except that it may
approve loans under section 7(a)(21) of this Act in gross
amounts of not more than $1,250,000.
``(h) Fiscal Year 2002.--
``(1) Program levels.--The following program levels are
authorized for fiscal year 2002:
``(A) For the programs authorized by this Act, the
Administration is authorized to make--
``(i) $60,000,000 in technical assistance grants as
provided in section 7(m); and
``(ii) $80,000,000 in direct loans, as provided in 7(m).
``(B) For the programs authorized by this Act, the
Administration is authorized to make $20,050,000,000 in
deferred participation loans and other financings. Of such
sum, the Administration is authorized to make--
``(i) $15,000,000,000 in general business loans as provided
in section 7(a);
``(ii) $4,500,000,000 in financings as provided in section
7(a)(13) of this Act and section 504 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958;
``(iii) $500,000,000 in loans as provided in section
7(a)(21); and
``(iv) $50,000,000 in loans as provided in section 7(m).
``(C) For the programs authorized by title III of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration is
authorized to make--
``(i) $3,500,000,000 in purchases of participating
securities; and
``(ii) $2,500,000,000 in guarantees of debentures.
``(D) For the programs authorized by part B of title IV of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration
is authorized to enter into guarantees not to exceed
$5,000,000,000 of which not more than 50 percent may be in
bonds approved pursuant to section 411(a)(3) of that Act.
``(E) The Administration is authorized to make grants or
enter cooperative agreements for a total amount of $6,000,000
for the Service Corps of Retired Executives program
authorized by section 8(b)(1).
``(2) Additional authorizations.--
``(A) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administration for fiscal year 2002 such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act not
elsewhere provided for, including administrative expenses and
necessary loan capital for disaster loans pursuant to section
7(b), and to carry out title IV of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, including salaries and expenses of
the Administration.
``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
paragraph, for fiscal year 2002--
``(i) no funds are authorized to be used as loan capital
for the loan program authorized by section 7(a)(21) except by
transfer from another Federal department or agency to the
Administration, unless the program level authorized for
general business loans under paragraph (1)(B)(i) is fully
funded; and
``(ii) the Administration may not approve loans on its own
behalf or on behalf of any other Federal department or
agency, by contract or otherwise, under terms and conditions
other than those specifically authorized under this
[[Page 24555]]
Act or the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, except that
it may approve loans under section 7(a)(21) of this Act in
gross amounts of not more than $1,250,000.
``(i) Fiscal Year 2003.--
``(1) Program levels.--The following program levels are
authorized for fiscal year 2003:
``(A) For the programs authorized by this Act, the
Administration is authorized to make--
``(i) $70,000,000 in technical assistance grants as
provided in section 7(m); and
``(ii) $100,000,000 in direct loans, as provided in 7(m).
``(B) For the programs authorized by this Act, the
Administration is authorized to make $21,550,000,000 in
deferred participation loans and other financings. Of such
sum, the Administration is authorized to make--
``(i) $16,000,000,000 in general business loans as provided
in section 7(a);
``(ii) $5,000,000,000 in financings as provided in section
7(a)(13) of this Act and section 504 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958;
``(iii) $500,000,000 in loans as provided in section
7(a)(21); and
``(iv) $50,000,000 in loans as provided in section 7(m).
``(C) For the programs authorized by title III of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration is
authorized to make--
``(i) $4,000,000,000 in purchases of participating
securities; and
``(ii) $3,000,000,000 in guarantees of debentures.
``(D) For the programs authorized by part B of title IV of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, the Administration
is authorized to enter into guarantees not to exceed
$6,000,000,000 of which not more than 50 percent may be in
bonds approved pursuant to section 411(a)(3) of that Act.
``(E) The Administration is authorized to make grants or
enter into cooperative agreements for a total amount of
$7,000,000 for the Service Corps of Retired Executives
program authorized by section 8(b)(1).
``(2) Additional authorizations.--
``(A) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administration for fiscal year 2003 such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act not
elsewhere provided for, including administrative expenses and
necessary loan capital for disaster loans pursuant to section
7(b), and to carry out title IV of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, including salaries and expenses of
the Administration.
``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
paragraph, for fiscal year 2003--
``(i) no funds are authorized to be used as loan capital
for the loan program authorized by section 7(a)(21) except by
transfer from another Federal department or agency to the
Administration, unless the program level authorized for
general business loans under paragraph (1)(B)(i) is fully
funded; and
``(ii) the Administration may not approve loans on its own
behalf or on behalf of any other Federal department or
agency, by contract or otherwise, under terms and conditions
other than those specifically authorized under this Act or
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, except that it may
approve loans under section 7(a)(21) of this Act in gross
amounts of not more than $1,250,000.''.
SEC. 503. ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Drug-Free Workplace Program.--Section 27 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 654) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``drug-free
workplace demonstration program'' and inserting ``paul d.
coverdell drug-free workplace program''; and
(2) in subsection (g)(1), by striking ``$10,000,000 for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000'' and inserting ``$5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003''.
(b) HUBZone Program.--Section 31 of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 657a) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the program established by
this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001
through 2003.''.
(c) Very Small Business Concerns Program.--Section 304(i)
of the Small Business Administration Reauthorization and
Amendments Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-403; 15 U.S.C. 644
note) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2003''.
(d) Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Businesses
Program.--Section 7102(c) of the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355; 15 U.S.C. 644
note) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2003''.
(e) SBDC Services.--Section 21(c)(3)(T) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(c)(3)(T)) is amended by striking
``2000'' and inserting ``2003''.
SEC. 504. COSPONSORSHIP.
(a) In General.--Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 637(b)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1)(A) to provide--
``(i) technical, managerial, and informational aids to
small business concerns--
``(I) by advising and counseling on matters in connection
with Government procurement and policies, principles, and
practices of good management;
``(II) by cooperating and advising with--
``(aa) voluntary business, professional, educational, and
other nonprofit organizations, associations, and institutions
(except that the Administration shall take such actions as it
determines necessary to ensure that such cooperation does not
constitute or imply an endorsement by the Administration of
the organization or its products or services, and shall
ensure that it receives appropriate recognition in all
printed materials); and
``(bb) other Federal and State agencies;
``(III) by maintaining a clearinghouse for information on
managing, financing, and operating small business
enterprises; and
``(IV) by disseminating such information, including through
recognition events, and by other activities that the
Administration determines to be appropriate; and
``(ii) through cooperation with a profit-making concern
(referred to in this paragraph as a `cosponsor'), training,
information, and education to small business concerns, except
that the Administration shall--
``(I) take such actions as it determines to be appropriate
to ensure that--
``(aa) the Administration receives appropriate recognition
and publicity;
``(bb) the cooperation does not constitute or imply an
endorsement by the Administration of any product or service
of the cosponsor;
``(cc) unnecessary promotion of the products or services of
the cosponsor is avoided; and
``(dd) utilization of any 1 cosponsor in a marketing area
is minimized; and
``(II) develop an agreement, executed on behalf of the
Administration by an employee of the Administration in
Washington, the District of Columbia, that provides, at a
minimum, that--
``(aa) any printed material to announce the cosponsorship
or to be distributed at the cosponsored activity, shall be
approved in advance by the Administration;
``(bb) the terms and conditions of the cooperation shall be
specified;
``(cc) only minimal charges may be imposed on any small
business concern to cover the direct costs of providing the
assistance;
``(dd) the Administration may provide to the cosponsorship
mailing labels, but not lists of names and addresses of small
business concerns compiled by the Administration;
``(ee) all printed materials containing the names of both
the Administration and the cosponsor shall include a
prominent disclaimer that the cooperation does not constitute
or imply an endorsement by the Administration of any product
or service of the cosponsor; and
``(ff) the Administration shall ensure that it receives
appropriate recognition in all cosponsorship printed
materials.''.
(b) Extension of Cosponsorship Authority.--Section
401(a)(2) of the Small Business Administration
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 637
note) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' and
inserting ``September 30, 2003''.
TITLE VI--HUBZONE PROGRAM
Subtitle A--HUBZones in Native America
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``HUBZones in Native
America Act of 2000''.
SEC. 602. HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN.
Section 3(p)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(p)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Hubzone small business concern.--The term `HUBZone
small business concern' means--
``(A) a small business concern that is owned and controlled
by 1 or more persons, each of whom is a United States
citizen;
``(B) a small business concern that is--
``(i) an Alaska Native Corporation owned and controlled by
Natives (as determined pursuant to section 29(e)(1) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1626(e)(1)));
or
``(ii) a direct or indirect subsidiary corporation, joint
venture, or partnership of an Alaska Native Corporation
qualifying pursuant to section 29(e)(1) of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1626(e)(1)), if that
subsidiary, joint venture, or partnership is owned and
controlled by Natives (as determined pursuant to section
29(e)(2)) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1626(e)(2))); or
``(C) a small business concern--
``(i) that is wholly owned by 1 or more Indian tribal
governments, or by a corporation that is wholly owned by 1 or
more Indian tribal governments; or
``(ii) that is owned in part by 1 or more Indian tribal
governments, or by a corporation that is wholly owned by 1 or
more Indian tribal governments, if all other owners are
either United States citizens or small business concerns.''.
SEC. 603. QUALIFIED HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN.
(a) In General.--Section 3(p)(5)(A)(i) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(5)(A)(i)) is amended by
striking subclauses (I) and (II) and inserting the following:
``(I) it is a HUBZone small business concern--
``(aa) pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph
(3), and that its principal office is located in a HUBZone
and not fewer than 35 percent of its employees reside in a
HUBZone; or
``(bb) pursuant to paragraph (3)(C), and not fewer than 35
percent of its employees engaged in performing a contract
awarded to the small business concern on the basis of a
preference provided under section 31(b) reside within any
Indian reservation governed by 1 or more of the tribal
government owners, or reside within any HUBZone adjoining any
such Indian reservation;
``(II) the small business concern will attempt to maintain
the applicable employment percentage under subclause (I)
during the performance of any contract awarded to the small
business concern on the basis of a preference provided under
section 31(b); and''.
(b) Clarifying Amendment.--Section 3(p)(5)(D)(i) of the
Small Business Act (15
[[Page 24556]]
U.S.C. 632(p)(5)(D)(i)) is amended by inserting ``once the
Administrator has made the certification required by
subparagraph (A)(i) regarding a qualified HUBZone small
business concern and has determined that subparagraph (A)(ii)
does not apply to that concern,'' before ``include''.
SEC. 604. OTHER DEFINITIONS.
Section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Native american small business concerns.--
``(A) Alaska native corporation.--The term `Alaska Native
Corporation' has the same meaning as the term `Native
Corporation' in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602).
``(B) Alaska native village.--The term `Alaska Native
Village' has the same meaning as the term `Native village' in
section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1602).
``(C) Indian reservation.--The term `Indian reservation'--
``(i) has the same meaning as the term `Indian country' in
section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, except that
such term does not include--
``(I) any lands that are located within a State in which a
tribe did not exercise governmental jurisdiction on the date
of enactment of this paragraph, unless that tribe is
recognized after that date of enactment by either an Act of
Congress or pursuant to regulations of the Secretary of the
Interior for the administrative recognition that an Indian
group exists as an Indian tribe (part 83 of title 25, Code of
Federal Regulations); and
``(II) lands taken into trust or acquired by an Indian
tribe after the date of enactment of this paragraph if such
lands are not located within the external boundaries of an
Indian reservation or former reservation or are not
contiguous to the lands held in trust or restricted status on
that date of enactment; and
``(ii) in the State of Oklahoma, means lands that--
``(I) are within the jurisdictional areas of an Oklahoma
Indian tribe (as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior); and
``(II) are recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as
eligible for trust land status under part 151 of title 25,
Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of
enactment of this paragraph).''.
Subtitle B--Other HUBZone Provisions
SEC. 611. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Qualified Census Tract.--Section 3(p)(4)(A) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(4)(A)) is amended by
striking ``(I)''.
(b) Qualified Nonmetropolitan County.--Section 3(p)(4) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(4)) is amended by
striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
``(B) Qualified nonmetropolitan county.--The term
`qualified nonmetropolitan county' means any county--
``(i) that was not located in a metropolitan statistical
area (as defined in section 143(k)(2)(B) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986) at the time of the most recent census
taken for purposes of selecting qualified census tracts under
section 42(d)(5)(C)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
and
``(ii) in which--
``(I) the median household income is less than 80 percent
of the nonmetropolitan State median household income, based
on the most recent data available from the Bureau of the
Census of the Department of Commerce; or
``(II) the unemployment rate is not less than 140 percent
of the Statewide average unemployment rate for the State in
which the county is located, based on the most recent data
available from the Secretary of Labor.''.
SEC. 612. ELIGIBLE CONTRACTS.
(a) Commodities Contracts.--Section 31(b)(3) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``In any'' and inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in any'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Procurement of commodities.--For purchases by the
Secretary of Agriculture of agricultural commodities, the
price evaluation preference shall be--
``(i) 10 percent, for the portion of a contract to be
awarded that is not greater than 25 percent of the total
volume being procured for each commodity in a single
invitation;
``(ii) 5 percent, for the portion of a contract to be
awarded that is greater than 25 percent, but not greater than
40 percent, of the total volume being procured for each
commodity in a single invitation; and
``(iii) zero, for the portion of a contract to be awarded
that is greater than 40 percent of the total volume being
procured for each commodity in a single invitation.
``(C) Treatment of preference.--A contract awarded to a
HUBZone small business concern under a preference described
in subparagraph (B) shall not be counted toward the
fulfillment of any requirement partially set aside for
competition restricted to small business concerns.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 3(p) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 632(p)), as amended by this Act, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5)(A)(i)(III)--
(A) in item (aa), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(cc) in the case of a contract for the procurement by the
Secretary of Agriculture of agricultural commodities, none of
the commodity being procured will be obtained by the prime
contractor through a subcontract for the purchase of the
commodity in substantially the final form in which it is to
be supplied to the Government; and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Agricultural commodity.--The term `agricultural
commodity' has the same meaning as in section 102 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).''.
SEC. 613. HUBZONE REDESIGNATED AREAS.
Section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) redesignated areas.''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Redesignated area.--The term `redesignated area'
means any census tract that ceases to be qualified under
subparagraph (A) and any nonmetropolitan county that ceases
to be qualified under subparagraph (B), except that a census
tract or a nonmetropolitan county may be a `redesignated
area' only for the 3-year period following the date on which
the census tract or nonmetropolitan county ceased to be so
qualified.''.
SEC. 614. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
Section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)),
as amended by this Act, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) a small business concern that is--
``(i) wholly owned by a community development corporation
that has received financial assistance under Part 1 of
Subchapter A of the Community Economic Development Act of
1981 (42 U.S.C. 9805 et seq.); or
``(ii) owned in part by 1 or more community development
corporations, if all other owners are either United States
citizens or small business concerns.''; and
(2) in paragraph (5)(A)(i)(I)(aa), by striking
``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A),
(B), or (D)''.
SEC. 615. REFERENCE CORRECTIONS.
(a) Section 3.--Section 3(p)(5)(C) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(5)(C)) is amended by striking
``subclause (IV) and (V) of subparagraph (A)(i)'' and
inserting ``items (aa) and (bb) of subparagraph
(A)(i)(III)''.
(b) Section 8.--Section 8(d)(4)(D) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(D)) is amended by inserting
``qualified HUBZone small business concerns,'' after ``small
business concerns,''.
TITLE VII--NATIONAL WOMEN'S BUSINESS COUNCIL REAUTHORIZATION
SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``National Women's Business
Council Reauthorization Act of 2000''.
SEC. 702. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COUNCIL.
Section 407 of the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988
(15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Not later'' and all
that follows through ``the President'' and inserting ``The
President'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``Not later'' and all that follows through
``the Administrator'' and inserting ``The Administrator'';
and
(B) by striking ``the Assistant Administrator of the Office
of Women's Business Ownership and'';
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``, except that'' and
all that follows through the end of the subsection and
inserting a period; and
(4) in subsection (h), by striking ``Not later'' and all
that follows through ``the Administrator'' and inserting
``The Administrator''.
SEC. 703. REPEAL OF PROCUREMENT PROJECT.
Section 409 of the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988
(15 U.S.C. 631 note) is repealed.
SEC. 704. STUDIES AND OTHER RESEARCH.
Section 410 of the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988
(15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 409. STUDIES AND OTHER RESEARCH.
``(a) In General.--The Council may conduct such studies and
other research relating to the award of Federal prime
contracts and subcontracts to women-owned businesses, to
access to credit and investment capital by women
entrepreneurs, or to other issues relating to women-owned
businesses, as the Council determines to be appropriate.
``(b) Contract Authority.--In conducting any study or other
research under this section, the Council may contract with 1
or more public or private entities.''.
SEC. 705. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 411 of the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988
(15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 410. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this title $1,000,000, for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2003, of which $550,000 shall be available in
each such fiscal year to carry out section 409.
``(b) Budget Review.--No amount made available under this
section for any fiscal year may be obligated or expended by
the Council before the date on which the Council reviews and
[[Page 24557]]
approves the operating budget of the Council to carry out the
responsibilities of the Council for that fiscal year.''.
TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. LOAN APPLICATION PROCESSING.
(a) Study.--The Administrator of the Small Business
Administration shall conduct a study to determine the average
time that the Administration requires to process an
application for each type of loan or loan guarantee made
under the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.).
(b) Transmittal.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to
Congress the results of the study conducted under subsection
(a).
SEC. 802. APPLICATION OF OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Small Business Act.--Section 7(a) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(30) Ownership requirements.--Ownership requirements to
determine the eligibility of a small business concern that
applies for assistance under any credit program under this
Act shall be determined without regard to any ownership
interest of a spouse arising solely from the application of
the community property laws of a State for purposes of
determining marital interests.''.
(b) Small Business Investment Act of 1958.--Section 502 of
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Ownership requirements.--Ownership requirements to
determine the eligibility of a small business concern that
applies for assistance under any credit program under this
title shall be determined without regard to any ownership
interest of a spouse arising solely from the application of
the community property laws of a State for purposes of
determining marital interests.''.
SEC. 803. SUBCONTRACTING PREFERENCE FOR VETERANS.
Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``small business
concerns owned and controlled by veterans,'' after ``small
business concerns,'' the first place that term appears in
each of the first and second sentences;
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``small business
concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans,''
after ``small business concerns owned and controlled by
veterans,'' in each of the first and second sentences; and
(B) in subparagraph (F), by inserting ``small business
concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans,''
after ``small business concern owned and controlled by
veterans,''; and
(3) in each of paragraphs (4)(D), (4)(E), (6)(A), (6)(C),
(6)(F), and (10)(B), by inserting ``small business concerns
owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans,'' after
``small business concerns owned and controlled by
veterans,''.
SEC. 804. SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER PROGRAM FUNDING.
(a) Authorization.--
(1) In general.--Section 20(a)(1) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended by striking ``For fiscal year
1985'' and all that follows through ``expended.'' and
inserting the following: ``For fiscal year 2000 and each
fiscal year thereafter, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary and appropriate,
to remain available until expended, and to be available
solely--
``(A) to carry out the Small Business Development Center
Program under section 21, but not to exceed the annual
funding level, as specified in section 21(a);
``(B) to pay the expenses of the National Small Business
Development Center Advisory Board, as provided in section
21(i);
``(C) to pay the expenses of the information sharing
system, as provided in section 21(c)(8);
``(D) to pay the expenses of the association referred to in
section 21(a)(3)(A) for conducting the certification program,
as provided in section 21(k)(2); and
``(E) to pay the expenses of the Administration, including
salaries of examiners, for conducting examinations as part of
the certification program conducted by the association
referred to in section 21(a)(3)(A).''.
(2) Technical amendment.--Section 20(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended by moving the
margins of paragraphs (3) and (4), including subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of paragraph (4), 2 ems to the left.
(b) Funding Formula.--Section 21(a)(4)(C) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a)(4)(C)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(C) Funding formula.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), the amount of a
formula grant received by a State under this subparagraph
shall be equal to an amount determined in accordance with the
following formula:
``(I) The annual amount made available under section 20(a)
for the Small Business Development Center Program, less any
reductions made for expenses authorized by clause (v) of this
subparagraph, shall be divided on a pro rata basis, based on
the percentage of the population of each State, as compared
to the population of the United States.
``(II) If the pro rata amount calculated under subclause
(I) for any State is less than the minimum funding level
under clause (iii), the Administration shall determine the
aggregate amount necessary to achieve that minimum funding
level for each such State.
``(III) The aggregate amount calculated under subclause
(II) shall be deducted from the amount calculated under
subclause (I) for States eligible to receive more than the
minimum funding level. The deductions shall be made on a pro
rata basis, based on the population of each such State, as
compared to the total population of all such States.
``(IV) The aggregate amount deducted under subclause (III)
shall be added to the grants of those States that are not
eligible to receive more than the minimum funding level in
order to achieve the minimum funding level for each such
State, except that the eligible amount of a grant to any
State shall not be reduced to an amount below the minimum
funding level.
``(ii) Grant determination.--The amount of a grant that a
State is eligible to apply for under this subparagraph shall
be the amount determined under clause (i), subject to any
modifications required under clause (iii), and shall be based
on the amount available for the fiscal year in which
performance of the grant commences, but not including amounts
distributed in accordance with clause (iv). The amount of a
grant received by a State under any provision of this
subparagraph shall not exceed the amount of matching funds
from sources other than the Federal Government, as required
under subparagraph (A).
``(iii) Minimum funding level.--The amount of the minimum
funding level for each State shall be determined for each
fiscal year based on the amount made available for that
fiscal year to carry out this section, as follows:
``(I) If the amount made available is not less than
$81,500,000 and not more than $90,000,000, the minimum
funding level shall be $500,000.
``(II) If the amount made available is less than
$81,500,000, the minimum funding level shall be the remainder
of $500,000 minus a percentage of $500,000 equal to the
percentage amount by which the amount made available is less
than $81,500,000.
``(III) If the amount made available is more than
$90,000,000, the minimum funding level shall be the sum of
$500,000 plus a percentage of $500,000 equal to the
percentage amount by which the amount made available exceeds
$90,000,000.
``(iv) Distributions.--Subject to clause (iii), if any
State does not apply for, or use, its full funding
eligibility for a fiscal year, the Administration shall
distribute the remaining funds as follows:
``(I) If the grant to any State is less than the amount
received by that State in fiscal year 2000, the
Administration shall distribute such remaining funds, on a
pro rata basis, based on the percentage of shortage of each
such State, as compared to the total amount of such remaining
funds available, to the extent necessary in order to increase
the amount of the grant to the amount received by that State
in fiscal year 2000, or until such funds are exhausted,
whichever first occurs.
``(II) If any funds remain after the application of
subclause (I), the remaining amount may be distributed as
supplemental grants to any State, as the Administration
determines, in its discretion, to be appropriate, after
consultation with the association referred to in subsection
(a)(3)(A).
``(v) Use of amounts.--
``(I) In general.--Of the amounts made available in any
fiscal year to carry out this section--
``(aa) not more than $500,000 may be used by the
Administration to pay expenses enumerated in subparagraphs
(B) through (D) of section 20(a)(1); and
``(bb) not more than $500,000 may be used by the
Administration to pay the examination expenses enumerated in
section 20(a)(1)(E).
``(II) Limitation.--No funds described in subclause (I) may
be used for examination expenses under section 20(a)(1)(E) if
the usage would reduce the amount of grants made available
under clause (i)(I) of this subparagraph to less than
$85,000,000 (after excluding any amounts provided in
appropriations Acts for specific institutions or for purposes
other than the general small business development center
program) or would further reduce the amount of such grants
below such amount.
``(vi) Exclusions.--Grants provided to a State by the
Administration or another Federal agency to carry out
subsection (a)(6) or (c)(3)(G), or for supplemental grants
set forth in clause (iv)(II) of this subparagraph, shall not
be included in the calculation of maximum funding for a State
under clause (ii) of this subparagraph.
``(vii) Authorization of appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph
$125,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
``(viii) State defined.--In this subparagraph, the term
`State' means each of the several States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.''.
SEC. 805. SURETY BONDS.
(a) Contract Amounts.--Section 411 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 694b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``$1,250,000'' and
inserting ``$2,000,000''; and
(2) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``$1,250,000'' and
inserting ``$2,000,000''.
(b) Extension of Certain Authority.--Section 207 of the
Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendment
Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 694b note) is amended by striking
``2000'' and inserting ``2003''.
SEC. 806. SIZE STANDARDS.
(a) Industry Classifications.--Section 15(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(a)) is
[[Page 24558]]
amended in the eighth sentence, by striking ``four-digit
standard'' and all that follows through ``published'' and
inserting ``definition of a `United States industry' under
the North American Industry Classification System, as
established''.
(b) Annual Receipts.--Section 3(a)(1) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``$500,000''
and inserting ``$750,000''.
SEC. 807. NATIVE HAWAIIAN ORGANIZATIONS UNDER SECTION 8(A).
Section 8(a)(15)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(a)(15)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) is a nonprofit corporation that has filed articles of
incorporation with the director (or the designee thereof) of
the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, or
any successor agency,''.
SEC. 808. NATIONAL VETERANS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
CORRECTION.
Section 33(k) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657c(k))
is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Corporation to carry out
this section--
``(A) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(B) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(C) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
``(D) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``2001'' each place it
appears and inserting ``2002''; and
(3) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``2002 or 2003'' and
inserting ``2003 or 2004''.
SEC. 809. PRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCES FOR SCORE.
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(b)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, SCORE may
solicit cash and in-kind contributions from the private
sector to be used to carry out its functions under this Act,
and may use payments made by the Administration pursuant to
this subparagraph for such solicitation.''.
SEC. 810. CONTRACT DATA COLLECTION.
(a) Definition of Bundled Contract.--Section 3(o)(1) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(o)(1)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(1) Bundled contract.--The term `bundled contract' means
a contract, or a modification of an existing contract, that
is entered into to meet--
``(A) requirements that are consolidated in a bundling of
contract requirements regardless of whether the contracting
agency has conducted a study of the effects of the
solicitation for the contract on civilian or military
personnel of the United States; or
``(B) any procurement requirement that permits the
consolidation of 2 or more procurement requirements.''.
(b) Analysis Required With Respect to Bundled Contracts.--
Section 15(e)(2)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
644(e)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(A) In general.--'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) Determination of necessity.--
``(i) In general.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Identification of displaced prime contractors.--The
market research required by clause (i) shall identify each
small business concern that will be displaced as a prime
contractor as a result of the award of a contract described
in such clause, and the Administrator shall maintain such
data for a period of not less than 10 years.
``(iii) Bundled contracts subject to recompetition.--
``(I) In general.--Not less than 30 days before issuing a
solicitation to recompete a previously bundled contract as a
contract that continues to contain the bundling of contract
requirements of the original bundled contract, the head of
the agency shall notify the Administrator and transmit a
report to the Administrator containing the results of the
market research required under clause (i).
``(II) Review and determination.--The Administrator shall,
not later than 30 days after notification under subclause
(I), review and determine--
``(aa) the amount of savings and benefits (in accordance
with this subsection) achieved under the bundling of contract
requirements; and
``(bb) whether such savings and benefits will continue to
be realized if the contract remains bundled and whether such
benefits would be greater if the procurement requirements
were divided into separate solicitations suitable for award
to small business concerns.
``(II) Appeal.--
``(aa) In general.--If, after conducting a review under
subclause (II), the Administrator reaches a conclusion with
respect to the savings and benefits of the recompeted bundle
different than that reached by the head of the contracting
agency as part of the market analysis required under clause
(i) and such head proceeds with a solicitation for the
contract, the Administrator shall file an appeal with the
Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
``(bb) Notice.--If the Administrator files an appeal under
item (aa), the Administrator shall notify the head of the
contracting agency.
``(cc) Filing of reports.--Not less than 5 calendar days
after notice is given under item (bb), the Administrator
shall submit a report containing information on the
Administrator's conclusions and determinations under
subclause (II), and the head of the contracting agency shall
submit the report described in subclause (I), to the
Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
``(dd) Decision.--Not later than 7 calendar days after the
submission of reports under item (cc), the Administrator of
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy shall determine
whether the subject contract shall be recompeted as bundled
contract.''.
(c) Annual Report on Contract Bundling.--Section 15 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(p) Annual Report on Contract Bundling.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subsection, and annually in March
thereafter, the Administration shall transmit a report on
contract bundling to the Committees on Small Business of the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
``(2) Contents.--Each report transmitted under paragraph
(1) shall include--
``(A) data on the number, arranged by industrial
classification, of small business concerns displaced as prime
contractors as a result of the award of bundled contracts by
Federal agencies; and
``(B) a description of the activities with respect to
previously bundled contracts of each Federal agency during
the preceding year, including--
``(i) data on the number and total dollar amount of all
contract requirements that were bundled; and
``(ii) with respect to each bundled contract, data or
information on--
``(I) the justification for the bundling of contract
requirements;
``(II) the cost savings realized by bundling the contract
requirements over the life of the contract;
``(III) the extent to which maintaining the bundled status
of contract requirements is projected to result in continued
cost savings;
``(IV) the extent to which the bundling of contract
requirements complied with the contracting agency's small
business subcontracting plan, including the total dollar
value awarded to small business concerns as subcontractors
and the total dollar value previously awarded to small
business concerns as prime contractors; and
``(V) the impact of the bundling of contract requirements
on small business concerns unable to compete as prime
contractors for the consolidated requirements and on the
industries of such small business concerns, including a
description of any changes to the proportion of any such
industry that is composed of small business concerns.''.
(d) Reporting of Bundled Contract Opportunities.--Section
414(a) of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 (4
U.S.C. 405 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000'';
and
(2) by striking ``bundling of contract requirements'' and
inserting ``bundled contract''.
(e) Provision of Data.--Upon the request of the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the head
of any contracting agency shall promptly provide to the
Administrator such information as the Administrator
determines to be necessary to carry out this section or the
amendments made by this section.
SEC. 811. PROCUREMENT PROGRAM FOR WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS
CONCERNS.
Section 8 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(m) Procurement Program for Women-owned Small Business
Concerns.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) Contracting officer.--The term `contracting officer'
has the meaning given such term in section 27(f)(5) of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
423(f)(5)).
``(B) Small business concern owned and controlled by
women.--The term `small business concern owned and controlled
by women' has the meaning given such term in section 3(n),
except that ownership shall be determined without regard to
any community property law.
``(2) Authority to restrict competition.--In accordance
with this subsection, a contracting officer may restrict
competition for any contract for the procurement of goods or
services by the Federal Government to small business concerns
owned and controlled by women, if--
``(A) each of the concerns is not less than 51 percent
owned by 1 or more women who are economically disadvantaged
(and such ownership is determined without regard to any
community property law);
``(B) the contracting officer has a reasonable expectation
that 2 or more small business concerns owned and controlled
by women will submit offers for the contract;
``(C) the contract is for the procurement of goods or
services with respect to an industry identified by the
Administrator pursuant to paragraph (3);
``(D) the anticipated award price of the contract
(including options) does not exceed--
``(i) $5,000,000, in the case of a contract assigned an
industrial classification code for manufacturing; or
``(ii) $3,000,000, in the case of all other contracts;
``(E) in the estimation of the contracting officer, the
contract award can be made at a fair and reasonable price;
and
``(F) each of the concerns--
[[Page 24559]]
``(i) is certified by a Federal agency, a State government,
or a national certifying entity approved by the
Administrator, as a small business concern owned and
controlled by women; or
``(ii) certifies to the contracting officer that it is a
small business concern owned and controlled by women and
provides adequate documentation, in accordance with standards
established by the Administration, to support such
certification.
``(3) Waiver.--With respect to a small business concern
owned and controlled by women, the Administrator may waive
subparagraph (2)(A) if the Administrator determines that the
concern is in an industry in which small business concerns
owned and controlled by women are substantially
underrepresented.
``(4) Identification of industries.--The Administrator
shall conduct a study to identify industries in which small
business concerns owned and controlled by women are
underrepresented with respect to Federal procurement
contracting.
``(5) Enforcement; penalties.--
``(A) Verification of eligibility.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Administrator shall establish procedures
relating to--
``(i) the filing, investigation, and disposition by the
Administration of any challenge to the eligibility of a small
business concern to receive assistance under this subsection
(including a challenge, filed by an interested party,
relating to the veracity of a certification made or
information provided to the Administration by a small
business concern under paragraph (2)(F)); and
``(ii) verification by the Administrator of the accuracy of
any certification made or information provided to the
Administration by a small business concern under paragraph
(2)(F).
``(B) Examinations.--The procedures established under
subparagraph (A) may provide for program examinations
(including random program examinations) by the Administrator
of any small business concern making a certification or
providing information to the Administrator under paragraph
(2)(F).
``(C) Penalties.--In addition to the penalties described in
section 16(d), any small business concern that is determined
by the Administrator to have misrepresented the status of
that concern as a small business concern owned and controlled
by women for purposes of this subsection, shall be subject
to--
``(i) section 1001 of title 18, United States Code; and
``(ii) sections 3729 through 3733 of title 31, United
States Code.
``(6) Provision of data.--Upon the request of the
Administrator, the head of any Federal department or agency
shall promptly provide to the Administrator such information
as the Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out
this subsection.''.
TITLE IX--COMMUNITY RENEWAL AND NEW MARKETS INITIATIVES
SEC. 901. NEW MARKETS VENTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``New
Markets Venture Capital Program Act of 2000''.
(b) New Markets Venture Capital Program.--Title III of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 681 et seq.)
is amended--
(1) in the heading for the title, by striking ``SMALL
BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANIES'' and inserting ``INVESTMENT
DIVISION PROGRAMS'';
(2) by inserting before the heading for section 301 the
following:
``Part A--Small Business Investment Companies'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``Part B--New Markets Venture Capital Program
``SEC. 351. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part, the following definitions apply:
``(1) Developmental venture capital.--The term
`developmental venture capital' means capital in the form of
equity capital investments in businesses made with a primary
objective of fostering economic development in low-income
geographic areas. For the purposes of this paragraph, the
term `equity capital' has the same meaning given such term in
section 303(g)(4).
``(2) Low-income individual.--The term `low-income
individual' means an individual whose income (adjusted for
family size) does not exceed--
``(A) for metropolitan areas, 80 percent of the area median
income; and
``(B) for nonmetropolitan areas, the greater of--
``(i) 80 percent of the area median income; or
``(ii) 80 percent of the statewide nonmetropolitan area
median income.
``(3) Low-income geographic area.--The term `low-income
geographic area' means--
``(A) any population census tract (or in the case of an
area that is not tracted for population census tracts, the
equivalent county division, as defined by the Bureau of the
Census of the Department of Commerce for purposes of defining
poverty areas), if--
``(i) the poverty rate for that census tract is not less
than 20 percent;
``(ii) in the case of a tract--
``(I) that is located within a metropolitan area, 50
percent or more of the households in that census tract have
an income equal to less than 60 percent of the area median
gross income; or
``(II) that is not located within a metropolitan area, the
median household income for such tract does not exceed 80
percent of the statewide median household income; or
``(iii) as determined by the Administrator based on
objective criteria, a substantial population of low-income
individuals reside, an inadequate access to investment
capital exists, or other indications of economic distress
exist in that census tract; or
``(B) any area located within--
``(i) a HUBZone (as defined in section 3(p) of the Small
Business Act and the implementing regulations issued under
that section);
``(ii) an urban empowerment zone or urban enterprise
community (as designated by the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development); or
``(iii) a rural empowerment zone or rural enterprise
community (as designated by the Secretary of Agriculture).
``(4) New markets venture capital company.--The term `New
Markets Venture Capital company' means a company that--
``(A) has been granted final approval by the Administrator
under section 354(e); and
``(B) has entered into a participation agreement with the
Administrator.
``(5) Operational assistance.--The term `operational
assistance' means management, marketing, and other technical
assistance that assists a small business concern with
business development.
``(6) Participation agreement.--The term `participation
agreement' means an agreement, between the Administrator and
a company granted final approval under section 354(e), that--
``(A) details the company's operating plan and investment
criteria; and
``(B) requires the company to make investments in smaller
enterprises at least 80 percent of which are located in low-
income geographic areas.
``(7) Specialized small business investment company.--The
term `specialized small business investment company' means
any small business investment company that--
``(A) invests solely in small business concerns that
contribute to a well-balanced national economy by
facilitating ownership in such concerns by persons whose
participation in the free enterprise system is hampered
because of social or economic disadvantages;
``(B) is organized or chartered under State business or
nonprofit corporations statutes, or formed as a limited
partnership; and
``(C) was licensed under section 301(d), as in effect
before September 30, 1996.
``(8) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States;
``SEC. 352. PURPOSES.
``The purposes of the New Markets Venture Capital Program
established under this part are--
``(1) to promote economic development and the creation of
wealth and job opportunities in low-income geographic areas
and among individuals living in such areas by encouraging
developmental venture capital investments in smaller
enterprises primarily located in such areas; and
``(2) to establish a developmental venture capital program,
with the mission of addressing the unmet equity investment
needs of small enterprises located in low-income geographic
areas, to be administered by the Administrator--
``(A) to enter into participation agreements with New
Markets Venture Capital companies;
``(B) to guarantee debentures of New Markets Venture
Capital companies to enable each such company to make
developmental venture capital investments in smaller
enterprises in low-income geographic areas; and
``(C) to make grants to New Markets Venture Capital
companies, and to other entities, for the purpose of
providing operational assistance to smaller enterprises
financed, or expected to be financed, by such companies.
``SEC. 353. ESTABLISHMENT.
``In accordance with this part, the Administrator shall
establish a New Markets Venture Capital Program, under which
the Administrator may--
``(1) enter into participation agreements with companies
granted final approval under section 354(e) for the purposes
set forth in section 352;
``(2) guarantee the debentures issued by New Markets
Venture Capital companies as provided in section 355; and
``(3) make grants to New Markets Venture Capital companies,
and to other entities, under section 358.
``SEC. 354. SELECTION OF NEW MARKETS VENTURE CAPITAL
COMPANIES.
``(a) Eligibility.--A company shall be eligible to apply to
participate, as a New Markets Venture Capital company, in the
program established under this part if--
``(1) the company is a newly formed for-profit entity or a
newly formed for-profit subsidiary of an existing entity;
``(2) the company has a management team with experience in
community development financing or relevant venture capital
financing; and
``(3) the company has a primary objective of economic
development of low-income geographic areas.
``(b) Application.--To participate, as a New Markets
Venture Capital company, in the program established under
this part a company meeting the eligibility requirements set
forth in subsection (a) shall submit an application to the
Administrator that includes--
``(1) a business plan describing how the company intends to
make successful developmental
[[Page 24560]]
venture capital investments in identified low-income
geographic areas;
``(2) information regarding the community development
finance or relevant venture capital qualifications and
general reputation of the company's management;
``(3) a description of how the company intends to work with
community organizations and to seek to address the unmet
capital needs of the communities served;
``(4) a proposal describing how the company intends to use
the grant funds provided under this part to provide
operational assistance to smaller enterprises financed by the
company, including information regarding whether the company
intends to use licensed professionals, when necessary, on the
company's staff or from an outside entity;
``(5) with respect to binding commitments to be made to the
company under this part, an estimate of the ratio of cash to
in-kind contributions;
``(6) a description of the criteria to be used to evaluate
whether and to what extent the company meets the objectives
of the program established under this part;
``(7) information regarding the management and financial
strength of any parent firm, affiliated firm, or any other
firm essential to the success of the company's business plan;
and
``(8) such other information as the Administrator may
require.
``(c) Conditional Approval.--
``(1) In general.--From among companies submitting
applications under subsection (b), the Administrator shall,
in accordance with this subsection, conditionally approve
companies to participate in the New Markets Venture Capital
Program.
``(2) Selection criteria.--In selecting companies under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider the
following:
``(A) The likelihood that the company will meet the goals
of its business plan.
``(B) The experience and background of the company's
management team.
``(C) The need for developmental venture capital
investments in the geographic areas in which the company
intends to invest.
``(D) The extent to which the company will concentrate its
activities on serving the geographic areas in which it
intends to invest.
``(E) The likelihood that the company will be able to
satisfy the conditions under subsection (d).
``(F) The extent to which the activities proposed by the
company will expand economic opportunities in the geographic
areas in which the company intends to invest.
``(G) The strength of the company's proposal to provide
operational assistance under this part as the proposal
relates to the ability of the applicant to meet applicable
cash requirements and properly utilize in-kind contributions,
including the use of resources for the services of licensed
professionals, when necessary, whether provided by persons on
the company's staff or by persons outside of the company.
``(H) Any other factors deemed appropriate by the
Administrator.
``(3) Nationwide distribution.--The Administrator shall
select companies under paragraph (1) in such a way that
promotes investment nationwide.
``(d) Requirements To Be Met for Final Approval.--The
Administrator shall grant each conditionally approved company
a period of time, not to exceed 2 years, to satisfy the
following requirements:
``(1) Capital requirement.--Each conditionally approved
company shall raise not less than $5,000,000 of private
capital or binding capital commitments from one or more
investors (other than agencies or departments of the Federal
Government) who meet criteria established by the
Administrator.
``(2) Nonadministration resources for operational
assistance.--
``(A) In general.--In order to provide operational
assistance to smaller enterprises expected to be financed by
the company, each conditionally approved company--
``(i) shall have binding commitments (for contribution in
cash or in kind)--
``(I) from any sources other than the Small Business
Administration that meet criteria established by the
Administrator;
``(II) payable or available over a multiyear period
acceptable to the Administrator (not to exceed 10 years); and
``(III) in an amount not less than 30 percent of the total
amount of capital and commitments raised under paragraph (1);
``(ii) shall have purchased an annuity--
``(I) from an insurance company acceptable to the
Administrator;
``(II) using funds (other than the funds raised under
paragraph (1)) from any source other than the Administrator;
and
``(III) that yields cash payments over a multiyear period
acceptable to the Administrator (not to exceed 10 years) in
an amount not less than 30 percent of the total amount of
capital and commitments raised under paragraph (1); or
``(iii) shall have binding commitments (for contributions
in cash or in kind) of the type described in clause (i) and
shall have purchased an annuity of the type described in
clause (ii), which in the aggregate make available, over a
multiyear period acceptable to the Administrator (not to
exceed 10 years), an amount not less than 30 percent of the
total amount of capital and commitments raised under
paragraph (1).
``(B) Exception.--The Administrator may, in the discretion
of the Administrator and based upon a showing of special
circumstances and good cause, consider an applicant to have
satisfied the requirements of subparagraph (A) if the
applicant has--
``(i) a viable plan that reasonably projects the capacity
of the applicant to raise the amount (in cash or in-kind)
required under subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) binding commitments in an amount equal to not less
than 20 percent of the total amount required under paragraph
(A).
``(C) Limitation.--In order to comply with the requirements
of subparagraphs (A) and (B), the total amount of a company's
in-kind contributions may not exceed 50 percent of the
company's total contributions.
``(e) Final Approval; Designation.--The Administrator
shall, with respect to each applicant conditionally approved
to operate as a New Markets Venture Capital company under
subsection (c), either--
``(1) grant final approval to the applicant to operate as a
New Markets Venture Capital company under this part and
designate the applicant as such a company, if the applicant--
``(A) satisfies the requirements of subsection (d) on or
before the expiration of the time period described in that
subsection; and
``(B) enters into a participation agreement with the
Administrator; or
``(2) if the applicant fails to satisfy the requirements of
subsection (d) on or before the expiration of the time period
described in that subsection, revoke the conditional approval
granted under that subsection.
``SEC. 355. DEBENTURES.
``(a) In General.--The Administrator may guarantee the
timely payment of principal and interest, as scheduled, on
debentures issued by any New Markets Venture Capital company.
``(b) Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may make
guarantees under this section on such terms and conditions as
it deems appropriate, except that the term of any debenture
guaranteed under this section shall not exceed 15 years.
``(c) Full Faith and Credit of the United States.--The full
faith and credit of the United States is pledged to pay all
amounts that may be required to be paid under any guarantee
under this part.
``(d) Maximum Guarantee.--
``(1) In general.--Under this section, the Administrator
may guarantee the debentures issued by a New Markets Venture
Capital company only to the extent that the total face amount
of outstanding guaranteed debentures of such company does not
exceed 150 percent of the private capital of the company, as
determined by the Administrator.
``(2) Treatment of certain federal funds.--For the purposes
of paragraph (1), private capital shall include capital that
is considered to be Federal funds, if such capital is
contributed by an investor other than an agency or department
of the Federal Government.
``SEC. 356. ISSUANCE AND GUARANTEE OF TRUST CERTIFICATES.
``(a) Issuance.--The Administrator may issue trust
certificates representing ownership of all or a fractional
part of debentures issued by a New Markets Venture Capital
company and guaranteed by the Administrator under this part,
if such certificates are based on and backed by a trust or
pool approved by the Administrator and composed solely of
guaranteed debentures.
``(b) Guarantee.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator may, under such terms
and conditions as it deems appropriate, guarantee the timely
payment of the principal of and interest on trust
certificates issued by the Administrator or its agents for
purposes of this section.
``(2) Limitation.--Each guarantee under this subsection
shall be limited to the extent of principal and interest on
the guaranteed debentures that compose the trust or pool.
``(3) Prepayment or default.--In the event that a debenture
in a trust or pool is prepaid, or in the event of default of
such a debenture, the guarantee of timely payment of
principal and interest on the trust certificates shall be
reduced in proportion to the amount of principal and interest
such prepaid debenture represents in the trust or pool.
Interest on prepaid or defaulted debentures shall accrue and
be guaranteed by the Administrator only through the date of
payment of the guarantee. At any time during its term, a
trust certificate may be called for redemption due to
prepayment or default of all debentures.
``(c) Full Faith and Credit of the United States.--The full
faith and credit of the United States is pledged to pay all
amounts that may be required to be paid under any guarantee
of a trust certificate issued by the Administrator or its
agents under this section.
``(d) Fees.--The Administrator shall not collect a fee for
any guarantee of a trust certificate under this section, but
any agent of the Administrator may collect a fee approved by
the Administrator for the functions described in subsection
(f)(2).
``(e) Subrogation and Ownership Rights.--
``(1) Subrogation.--In the event the Administrator pays a
claim under a guarantee issued under this section, it shall
be subrogated fully to the rights satisfied by such payment.
``(2) Ownership rights.--No Federal, State, or local law
shall preclude or limit the exercise by the Administrator of
its ownership rights in the debentures residing in a trust or
pool against which trust certificates are issued under this
section.
``(f) Management and Administration.--
``(1) Registration.--The Administrator may provide for a
central registration of all trust certificates issued under
this section.
[[Page 24561]]
``(2) Contracting of functions.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator may contract with an
agent or agents to carry out on behalf of the Administrator
the pooling and the central registration functions provided
for in this section including, notwithstanding any other
provision of law--
``(i) maintenance, on behalf of and under the direction of
the Administrator, of such commercial bank accounts or
investments in obligations of the United States as may be
necessary to facilitate the creation of trusts or pools
backed by debentures guaranteed under this part; and
``(ii) the issuance of trust certificates to facilitate the
creation of such trusts or pools.
``(B) Fidelity bond or insurance requirement.--Any agent
performing functions on behalf of the Administrator under
this paragraph shall provide a fidelity bond or insurance in
such amounts as the Administrator determines to be necessary
to fully protect the interests of the United States.
``(3) Regulation of brokers and dealers.--The Administrator
may regulate brokers and dealers in trust certificates issued
under this section.
``(4) Electronic registration.--Nothing in this subsection
may be construed to prohibit the use of a book-entry or other
electronic form of registration for trust certificates issued
under this section.
``SEC. 357. FEES.
``Except as provided in section 356(d), the Administrator
may charge such fees as it deems appropriate with respect to
any guarantee or grant issued under this part.
``SEC. 358. OPERATIONAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Authority.--In accordance with this section, the
Administrator may make grants to New Markets Venture Capital
companies and to other entities, as authorized by this part,
to provide operational assistance to smaller enterprises
financed, or expected to be financed, by such companies or
other entities.
``(2) Terms.--Grants made under this subsection shall be
made over a multiyear period not to exceed 10 years, under
such other terms as the Administrator may require.
``(3) Grants to specialized small business investment
companies.--
``(A) Authority.--In accordance with this section, the
Administrator may make grants to specialized small business
investment companies to provide operational assistance to
smaller enterprises financed, or expected to be financed, by
such companies after the effective date of the New Markets
Venture Capital Program Act of 2000.
``(B) Use of funds.--The proceeds of a grant made under
this paragraph may be used by the company receiving such
grant only to provide operational assistance in connection
with an equity investment (made with capital raised after the
effective date of the New Markets Venture Capital Program Act
of 2000) in a business located in a low-income geographic
area.
``(C) Submission of plans.--A specialized small business
investment company shall be eligible for a grant under this
section only if the company submits to the Administrator, in
such form and manner as the Administrator may require, a plan
for use of the grant.
``(4) Grant amount.--
``(A) New markets venture capital companies.--The amount of
a grant made under this subsection to a New Markets Venture
Capital company shall be equal to the resources (in cash or
in kind) raised by the company under with section 354(d)(2).
``(B) Other entities.--The amount of a grant made under
this subsection to any entity other than a New Markets
Venture capital company shall be equal to the resources (in
cash or in kind) raised by the entity in accordance with the
requirements applicable to New Markets Venture Capital
companies set forth in section 354(d)(2).
``(5) Pro rata reductions.--If the amount made available to
carry out this section is insufficient for the Administrator
to provide grants in the amounts provided for in paragraph
(4), the Administrator shall make pro rata reductions in the
amounts otherwise payable to each company and entity under
such paragraph.
``(b) Supplemental Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator may make supplemental
grants to New Markets Venture Capital companies and to other
entities, as authorized by this part, under such terms as the
Administrator may require, to provide additional operational
assistance to smaller enterprises financed, or expected to be
financed, by the companies.
``(2) Matching requirement.--The Administrator may require,
as a condition of any supplemental grant made under this
subsection, that the company or entity receiving the grant
provide from resources (in cash or in kind), other than those
provided by the Administrator, a matching contribution equal
to the amount of the supplemental grant.
``(c) Limitation.--None of the assistance made available
under this section may be used for any overhead or general
and administrative expense of a New Markets Venture Capital
company or a specialized small business investment company.
``SEC. 359. BANK PARTICIPATION.
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
any national bank, any member bank of the Federal Reserve
System, and (to the extent permitted under applicable State
law) any insured bank that is not a member of such system,
may invest in any New Markets Venture Capital company, or in
any entity established to invest solely in New Markets
Venture Capital companies.
``(b) Limitation.--No bank described in subsection (a) may
make investments described in such subsection that are
greater than 5 percent of the capital and surplus of the
bank.
``SEC. 360. FEDERAL FINANCING BANK.
``Section 318 shall not apply to any debenture issued by a
New Markets Venture Capital company under this part.
``SEC. 361. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
``Each New Markets Venture Capital company that
participates in the program established under this part shall
provide to the Administrator such information as the
Administrator may require, including--
``(1) information related to the measurement criteria that
the company proposed in its program application; and
``(2) in each case in which the company under this part
makes an investment in, or a loan or grant to, a business
that is not located in a low-income geographic area, a report
on the number and percentage of employees of the business who
reside in such areas.
``SEC. 362. EXAMINATIONS.
``(a) In General.--Each New Markets Venture Capital company
that participates in the program established under this part
shall be subject to examinations made at the direction of the
Investment Division of the Small Business Administration in
accordance with this section.
``(b) Assistance of Private Sector Entities.--Examinations
under this section may be conducted with the assistance of a
private sector entity that has both the qualifications and
the expertise necessary to conduct such examinations.
``(c) Costs.--
``(1) Assessment.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator may assess the cost of
examinations under this section, including compensation of
the examiners, against the company examined.
``(B) Payment.--Any company against which the Administrator
assesses costs under this paragraph shall pay such costs.
``(2) Deposit of funds.--Funds collected under this section
shall be deposited in the account for salaries and expenses
of the Small Business Administration.
``SEC. 363. INJUNCTIONS AND OTHER ORDERS.
``(a) In General.--Whenever, in the judgment of the
Administrator, a New Markets Venture Capital company or any
other person has engaged or is about to engage in any acts or
practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of
any provision of this Act, or of any rule or regulation under
this Act, or of any order issued under this Act, the
Administrator may make application to the proper district
court of the United States or a United States court of any
place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for an
order enjoining such acts or practices, or for an order
enforcing compliance with such provision, rule, regulation,
or order, and such courts shall have jurisdiction of such
actions and, upon a showing by the Administrator that such
New Markets Venture Capital company or other person has
engaged or is about to engage in any such acts or practices,
a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or
other order, shall be granted without bond.
``(b) Jurisdiction.--In any proceeding under subsection
(a), the court as a court of equity may, to such extent as it
deems necessary, take exclusive jurisdiction of the New
Market Venture Capital company and the assets thereof,
wherever located, and the court shall have jurisdiction in
any such proceeding to appoint a trustee or receiver to hold
or administer under the direction of the court the assets so
possessed.
``(c) Administrator as Trustee or Receiver.--
``(1) Authority.--The Administrator may act as trustee or
receiver of a New Markets Venture Capital company.
``(2) Appointment.--Upon request of the Administrator, the
court may appoint the Administrator to act as a trustee or
receiver of a New Markets Venture Capital company unless the
court deems such appointment inequitable or otherwise
inappropriate by reason of the special circumstances
involved.
``SEC. 364. ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.
``(a) In General.--With respect to any New Markets Venture
Capital company that violates or fails to comply with any of
the provisions of this Act, of any regulation issued under
this Act, or of any participation agreement entered into
under this Act, the Administrator may in accordance with this
section--
``(1) void the participation agreement between the
Administrator and the company; and
``(2) cause the company to forfeit all of the rights and
privileges derived by the company from this Act.
``(b) Adjudication of Noncompliance.--
``(1) In general.--Before the Administrator may cause a New
Markets Venture Capital company to forfeit rights or
privileges under subsection (a), a court of the United States
of competent jurisdiction must find that the company
committed a violation, or failed to comply, in a cause of
action brought for that purpose in the district, territory,
or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, in which the principal office of the company is
located.
``(2) Parties authorized to file causes of action.--Each
cause of action brought by the United States under this
subsection shall be brought by the Administrator or by the
Attorney General.
[[Page 24562]]
``SEC. 365. UNLAWFUL ACTS AND OMISSIONS; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
DUTY.
``(a) Parties Deemed To Commit a Violation.--Whenever any
New Markets Venture Capital company violates any provision of
this Act, of a regulation issued under this Act, or of a
participation agreement entered into under this Act, by
reason of its failure to comply with its terms or by reason
of its engaging in any act or practice that constitutes or
will constitute a violation thereof, such violation shall
also be deemed to be a violation and an unlawful act
committed by any person who, directly or indirectly,
authorizes, orders, participates in, causes, brings about,
counsels, aids, or abets in the commission of any acts,
practices, or transactions that constitute or will
constitute, in whole or in part, such violation.
``(b) Fiduciary Duties.--It shall be unlawful for any
officer, director, employee, agent, or other participant in
the management or conduct of the affairs of a New Markets
Venture Capital company to engage in any act or practice, or
to omit any act or practice, in breach of the person's
fiduciary duty as such officer, director, employee, agent, or
participant if, as a result thereof, the company suffers or
is in imminent danger of suffering financial loss or other
damage.
``(c) Unlawful Acts.--Except with the written consent of
the Administrator, it shall be unlawful--
``(1) for any person to take office as an officer,
director, or employee of any New Markets Venture Capital
company, or to become an agent or participant in the conduct
of the affairs or management of such a company, if the
person--
``(A) has been convicted of a felony, or any other criminal
offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or
``(B) has been found civilly liable in damages, or has been
permanently or temporarily enjoined by an order, judgment, or
decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, by reason of any
act or practice involving fraud, or breach of trust; and
``(2) for any person continue to serve in any of the
capacities described in paragraph (1), if--
``(A) the person is convicted of a felony, or any other
criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or
``(B) the person is found civilly liable in damages, or is
permanently or temporarily enjoined by an order, judgment, or
decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, by reason of any
act or practice involving fraud or breach of trust.
``SEC. 366. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION OF DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS.
``Using the procedures for removing or suspending a
director or an officer of a licensee set forth in section 313
(to the extent such procedures are not inconsistent with the
requirements of this part), the Administrator may remove or
suspend any director or officer of any New Markets Venture
Capital company.
``SEC. 367. REGULATIONS.
``The Administrator may issue such regulations as it deems
necessary to carry out the provisions of this part in
accordance with its purposes.
``SEC. 368. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal years 2001 through 2006, to remain available until
expended, the following sums:
``(1) Such subsidy budget authority as may be necessary to
guarantee $150,000,000 of debentures under this part.
``(2) $30,000,000 to make grants under this part.
``(b) Funds Collected for Examinations.--Funds deposited
under section 362(c)(2) are authorized to be appropriated
only for the costs of examinations under section 362 and for
the costs of other oversight activities with respect to the
program established under this part.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 20(e)(1)(C) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C 631 note) is amended by inserting
``part A of'' before ``title III''.
(d) Calculation of Maximum Amount of SBIC Leverage.--
(1) Maximum leverage.--Section 303(b)(2) of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Maximum leverage.--
``(A) In general.--After March 31, 1993, the maximum amount
of outstanding leverage made available to a company licensed
under section 301(c) of this Act shall be determined by the
amount of such company's private capital--
``(i) if the company has private capital of not more than
$15,000,000, the total amount of leverage shall not exceed
300 percent of private capital;
``(ii) if the company has private capital of more than
$15,000,000 but not more than $30,000,000, the total amount
of leverage shall not exceed $45,000,000 plus 200 percent of
the amount of private capital over $15,000,000; and
``(iii) if the company has private capital of more than
$30,000,000, the total amount of leverage shall not exceed
$75,000,000 plus 100 percent of the amount of private capital
over $30,000,000 but not to exceed an additional $15,000,000.
``(B) Adjustments.--
``(i) In general.--The dollar amounts in clauses (i), (ii),
and (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be adjusted annually to
reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index established by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
(ii) Initial adjustments.--The initial adjustments made
under this subparagraph after the date of the enactment of
the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 shall reflect
only increases from March 31, 1993.
``(C) Investments in low-income geographic areas.--In
calculating the outstanding leverage of a company for the
purposes of subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall not
include the amount of the cost basis of any equity investment
made by the company in a smaller enterprise located in a low-
income geographic area (as defined in section 351), to the
extent that the total of such amounts does not exceed 50
percent of the company's private capital.''.
(2) Maximum aggregate leverage.--Section 303(b)(4) of the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(4))
is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) Investments in low-income geographic areas.--In
calculating the aggregate outstanding leverage of a company
for the purposes of subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall
not include the amount of the cost basis of any equity
investment made by the company in a smaller enterprise
located in a low-income geographic area (as defined in
section 351), to the extent that the total of such amounts
does not exceed 50 percent of the company's private
capital.''.
(e) Bankruptcy Exemption for New Markets Venture Capital
Companies.--Section 109(b)(2) of title 11, United States
Code, is amended by inserting ``a New Markets Venture Capital
company as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958,'' after ``homestead association,''.
(f) Federal Savings Associations.--Section 5(c)(4) of the
Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(c)(4)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(F) New markets venture capital companies.--A Federal
savings association may invest in stock, obligations, or
other securities of any New Markets Venture Capital company
as defined in section 351 of the Small Business investment
Act of 1958, except that a Federal savings association may
not make any investment under this subparagraph if its
aggregate outstanding investment under this subparagraph
would exceed 5 percent of the capital and surplus of such
savings association.''.
SEC. 902. BUSINESSLINC GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.
Section 8 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) BusinessLINC Grants and Cooperative Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection, the
Administrator may make grants to and enter into cooperative
agreements with any coalition of private entities, public
entities, or any combination of private and public entities--
``(A) to expand business-to-business relationships between
large and small businesses; and
``(B) to provide businesses, directly or indirectly, with
online information and a database of companies that are
interested in mentor-protege programs or community-based,
statewide, or local business development programs.
``(2) Matching requirement.--Subject to subparagraph (B),
the Administrator may make a grant to a coalition under
paragraph (1) only if the coalition provides for activities
described in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B) an amount, either in
kind or in cash, equal to the grant amount.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $6,600,000,
to remain available until expended, for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2006.''.
Following is explanatory language for H.R. 5545, as
introduced on October 25, 2000. References in the following
to the ``conference agreement'' refer to the text of that
bill.
JOINT STATEMENT OF MANAGERS OF H.R. 2614--SMALL BUSINESS
REAUTHORIZATION
Title I--Small Business Innovation Research Program
The Small Business Innovation Research Program
Reauthorization Act of 2000 (H.R. 2392) was introduced on
June 30, 1999, and referred to the House Committees on Small
Business and Science. Both Committees held hearings and the
House Committee on Small Business reported H.R. 2392 on
September 23, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-329). In the interest of
moving the bill to the floor of the House of Representatives
promptly, the Committee on Science agreed not to exercise its
right to report the legislation, provided that the House
Committee on Small Business agreed to add the selected
portions of the Science Committee version of the legislation,
as Sections 8 through 11 of the House floor text of H.R.
2392. H.R. 2392 passed the House without further amendment on
September 27. The Science Committee provisions were explained
in floor statements by Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Morella,
and Mark Udall.
On March 21, 2000, the Senate Committee marked-up H.R. 2392
and on May 10, 2000, reported the bill (S. Rept. 106-289).
The Senate Committee struck several of the sections
originating from the House Committee on Science and added
sections not in the House-passed legislation, including a
requirement that Federal agencies with Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) programs report their methodology
for calculating their SBIR budgets to the Small Business
Administration (SBA) and a program to assist states in the
development of small high-technology businesses. Negotiations
then began among the leadership of the Senate
[[Page 24563]]
and House Committees on Small Business and the House
Committee on Science (hereinafter referred to as the three
committees). The resultant compromise text contains all major
House and Senate provisions, some of which have been amended
to reflect a compromise position. A section-by-section
explanation of the revised text follows. For purposes of this
statement, the bill passed by the House of Representatives is
referred to as the ``House version'' and the bill reported by
the Senate Committee on Small Business is referred to as the
``Senate version.''
Section 101. Short title; table of contents
The compromise text uses the Senate short title: ``Small
Business Innovation Research Program Reauthorization Act of
2000.'' The table of contents lists the sections in the
compromise text.
Section 102. Findings
The House and Senate versions of the findings are very
similar. The compromise text uses the House version of the
findings.
Section 103. Extension of the SBIR program
The House version extends the SBIR program for seven years
through September 30, 2007. The Senate version extends the
program for ten years through September 30, 2010. The
compromise text extends the program for eight years through
September 30, 2008.
Section 104. Annual report
The House version provides for the annual report on the
SBIR program prepared by the SBA to be sent to the Committee
on Science, as well as to the House and Senate Committees on
Small Business that currently receive it. The Senate version
did not include this section. The compromise text adopts the
House language.
Section 105. Third phase assistance
The compromise text of this technical amendment is
identical to both the House and Senate versions.
Section 106. Report on programs for annual performance plan
This section requires each agency that participates in the
SBIR program to submit to Congress a performance plan
consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act.
The House and Senate versions have the same intent. The
compromise text uses the House version.
Section 107. Output and outcome data
Both the House and Senate versions contain sections
enabling the collection and maintenance of information from
awardees as is necessary to assess the SBIR program. Both the
Senate and House versions require the SBA to maintain a
public database at SBA containing information on awardees
from all SBIR agencies. The Senate version adds paragraphs to
the public database section dealing with database
identification of businesses or subsidiaries established for
the commercial application of SBIR products or services and
the inclusion of information regarding mentors and mentoring
networks. The House version further requires the SBA to
establish and maintain a government database, which is exempt
from the Freedom of Information Act and is to be used solely
for program evaluation. Outside individuals must sign a non-
disclosure agreement before gaining access to the database.
The compromise text contains each of these provisions, with
certain modifications and clarifications, which are addressed
below.
With respect to the public database, the compromise text
makes clear that proprietary information, so identified by a
small business concern, will not be included in the public
database. With respect to the government database, the
compromise text clarifies that the inclusion of information
in the government database is not to be considered
publication for purposes of patent law. The compromise text
further permits the SBA to include in the government database
any information received in connection with an SBIR award the
SBA Administrator, in conjunction with the SBIR agency
program managers, consider to be relevant and appropriate or
that the Federal agency considers to be useful to SBIR
program evaluation.
With respect to small business reporting for the government
database, the compromise text directs that when a small
business applies for a second phase award it is required to
update information in the government database. If an
applicant for a second phase award receives the award, it
shall update information in the database concerning the award
at the termination of the award period and will be requested
to voluntarily update the information annually for an
additional period of five years. This reporting procedure is
similar to current Department of Defense requirements for the
reporting of such information. When sales or additional
investment information is related to more than one second
phase award is involved, the compromise text permits a small
business to apportion the information among the awards in any
way it chooses, provided the apportionment is noted on all
awards so apportioned.
The three committees understand that receiving complete
commercialization data on the SBIR program is difficult,
regardless of any reasonable time frame that could be
established for the reporting of such data. Commercialization
may occur many years following the receipt of a research
grant and research from an award, while not directly
resulting in a marketable product, may set the groundwork for
additional research that leads to such a product.
Nevertheless, the three committees believe that the
government database will provide useful information for
program evaluation.
Section 108. National Research Council Reports
The House version requires the four largest SBIR program
agencies to enter into an agreement with the National
Research Council (NRC) to conduct a comprehensive study of
how the SBIR program has stimulated technological innovation
and used small businesses to meet Federal research and
development needs and to make recommendations on potential
improvements to the program. The Senate version contains no
similar provision. The study was designed to answer questions
remaining from the House Committees' reviews of these
programs and to make sure that a current evaluation of the
program is available when the program next comes up for
reauthorization.
The compromise text makes several changes to the House
text. The compromise text adds the National Science
Foundation to the agencies entering the agreement with the
NRC and requires the agencies to consult with the SBA in
entering such agreement. It also expands on the House
version, which requires a review of the quality of SBIR
research, to require a comparison of the value of projects
conducted under SBIR with those funded by other Federal
research and development expenditures. The compromise text
further broadens the House version's review of the economic
rate of return of the SBIR program to require an evaluation
of the economic benefits of the SBIR program, including
economic rate of return, and a comparison of the economic
benefits of the SBIR program with that of other Federal
research and development expenditures. The compromise text
allows the NRC to choose an appropriate time-frame for such
analysis that results in a fair comparison.
The three committees believe that a comprehensive report on
the SBIR program and its relation to other Federal research
expenditures will be useful in program oversight and will
provide Congress with an understanding of the effects of
extramural Federal research and development funding provided
to large and small businesses and universities. The three
committees understand, however, that measuring the direct
benefits to the nation's economy from the SBIR program and
other Federal research expenditures may be difficult to
calculate and may not provide a complete portrayal of the
benefits achieved by the SBIR program. Accordingly, the
legislation requires the NRC also to review the non-economic
benefits of the SBIR program, which may include, among other
matters, the increase in scientific knowledge that has
resulted from the program. The paragraph in the compromise
text calling for recommendations remains the same as the
House version, except that the bill now asks the NRC to make
recommendations, should there be any.
While the study is to be carried out within National
Research Council study guidelines and procedures, the
compromise text requires the NRC to take the steps necessary
to ensure that individuals from the small business community
with expertise in the SBIR program are well-represented in
the panel established for performing the study and among the
peer reviewers of the study. The NRC is to consult with and
consider the views of the SBA's Office of Technology and the
SBA's Office of Advocacy and to conduct the study in an open
manner that makes sure that the views and experiences of
small businesses involved in the program are carefully
considered in the design and execution of the study.
Extension of the SBIR program for eight years rather than the
five being contemplated when the House study provision was
initially written has necessitated some adjustments in the
study. The report is now required three years rather than
four years after the date of enactment of the Act and the NRC
is to update the report within six years of enactment. The
update is intended to bring current, any information from the
study relevant to the reauthorization of the SBIR program. It
is not intended to be a second full-fledged study. In
addition, semiannual progress reports by NRC to the three
committees are required.
Section 109. Federal agency expenditures for the SBIR program
The Senate version requires each Federal agency with an
SBIR program to provide the SBA with a report describing its
methodology for calculating its extramural budget for
purposes of SBIR program set-aside and requires the
Administrator of the SBA to include an analysis of the
methodology from each agency in its annual report to the
Congress. The House version has no similar provision. The
compromise text follows the Senate text except that it
specifies that each agency, rather than the agency's
comptroller, shall submit the agency's report to the
Administrator. The three committees intend that each agency's
methodology include an itemization of each research program
that is excluded from the calculation of its extramural
budget for SBIR purposes as well as a brief explanation of
why the agency feels each excluded program meets a particular
exemption.
[[Page 24564]]
Section 110. Policy directive modifications
The House version includes policy directive modifications
in Section 9 and the requirement of a second phase commercial
plan in Section 10. The Senate version includes policy
directive modifications in Section 6. The Senate version and
now the compromise text require the Administrator to make
modifications to SBA's policy directives 120 days after the
date of enactment rather than the 30 days contained in the
House version. The compromise text drops the House policy
directive dealing with awards exceeding statutory dollar
amounts and time limits because this flexibility is already
being provided administratively. Addressed below is a
description of the policy directive modifications contained
in the compromise text that were not included in both the
Senate version and the House version.
Section 10 of the House version requires the SBA to modify
its policy directives to require that small businesses
provide a commercial plan with each application for a second-
phase award. The Senate version does not contain a similar
provision. The compromise text requires the SBA to modify its
policy directives to require that small businesses provide a
``succinct commercialization plan for each second phase award
moving towards commercialization.'' The three committees
acknowledge that commercialization is a current element of
the SBIR program. The statutory definition of SBIR, which is
not amended by H.R. 2392, includes ``a second phase, to
further develop proposals which meet particular program
needs, in which awards shall be made based on the scientific
and technical merit and feasibility of the proposals, as
evidenced by the first phase, considering among other things
the proposal's commercial potential . . .'', and lists
evidence of commercial potential as the small business's
commercialization record, private sector funding commitments,
SBIR Phase III commitments, and the presence of other
indicators of the commercial potential. The three committees
do not intend that the addition of a commercialization plan
either increase or decrease the emphasis an agency places on
the commercialization when reviewing second-phase proposals.
Rather, the commercialization plan will give SBIR agencies a
means of determining the seriousness with which individual
applicants approach commercialization.
The commercialization plan, while concise, should show that
the business has thought through both the steps it must take
to prepare for the fruits of the SBIR award to enter the
commercial marketplace or government procurement and the
steps to build business expertise as needed during the SBIR
second phase time period. The three committees intend that
agencies take into consideration the stage of development of
the product or process in deciding whether an appropriate
commercialization plan has been submitted. In those instances
when at the time of the SBIR Phase II proposal, the grantee
cannot identify either a product or process with the
potential eventually to enter either the commercial or the
government marketplace, no commercialization plan is
required.
The compromise text also adds new provisions that were not
contained in either the Senate version or the House version.
Current law (Section 9(j)(3)(C) of the Small Business Act)
requires that the Administrator put in place procedures to
ensure, to the extent practicable, that an agency which
intends to pursue research, development or production of a
technology developed by a small business concern under an
SBIR program enter into follow-on, non-SBIR funding
agreements with the small business concern for such research,
development, or production.
The three committees are concerned that agencies sometimes
provide these follow-on activities to large companies who are
in incumbent positions or through contract bundling without
written justification or without the statutorily required
documentation of the impracticability of using the small
business for the work. So that the SBA and the Congress can
track the extent of this problem, the compromise text
requires agencies to record and report each such occurrence
and to describe in writing why it is impractical to provide
the research project to the original SBIR company.
Additionally, the compromise text directs the SBA to develop
policy directives to implement the new subsection (v),
Simplified Reporting Requirements. This subsection requires
that the directives regarding collection of data be designed
to minimize the burden on small businesses; to permit the
updating the database by electronic means; and to use
standardized procedures for the collection and reporting of
data.
Section 103(a)(2) of P.L. 102-564, which reauthorized the
SBIR program in 1992, added language to the description of a
third phase award which made it clear that the third phase is
intended to be a logical conclusion of research projects
selected through competitive procedures in phases one and
two. The Report of the House Committee on Small Business
(H.Rpt. 102-554, Pt. I) provides that the purpose of that
clarification was to indicate the Committee's intent that an
agency which wishes to fund an SBIR project in phase three
(with non-SBIR monies) or enter into a follow-on procurement
contract with an SBIR company, need not conduct another
competition in order to satisfy the Federal Competition in
Contracting Act (CICA). Rather, by phase three the project
has survived two competitions and thus has already satisfied
the requirements of CICA, set forth in section 2302(2)(E) of
that Act, as they apply to the SBIR program. As there has
been confusion among SBIR agencies regarding the intent of
this change, the three committees reemphasize the intent
initially set forth in H.Rpt. 102-554, Pt. 1, including the
clarification that follow-on phase III procurement contracts
with an SBIR company may include procurement of products,
services, research, or any combination intended for use by
the Federal government.
Section 111. Federal and State Technology Partnership Program
This section establishes the FAST program from the Senate
version, which is a competitive matching grant program to
encourage states to assist in the development of high-
technology businesses. The House version does not contain a
similar provision. The most significant changes from the
Senate version in the compromise text are an extension of the
maximum duration of awards from three years to five and the
lowering of the matching requirement for funds assisting
businesses in low income areas to 50 cents per federal
dollar, as advocated by Ranking Member Velazquez of the House
Small Business Committee. The compromise text combines the
definitions found in the Senate version of this section and
the mentoring networks section.
Section 112. Mentoring networks
The Senate version sets forth criteria for mentoring
networks that organizations are encouraged to establish with
matching funds from the FAST program and creates a database
of small businesses willing to act as mentors. The compromise
text, except for relocating the program definitions to
Section 111, is the same as the Senate text. The House
version did not contain a similar provision.
Section 113. Simplified reporting requirements
This section is not in either the House or the Senate
versions. It requires the SBA Administrator to work with SBIR
program agencies on standardizing SBIR reporting requirements
with the ultimate goal of making the SBA's SBIR database more
user friendly. This provision requires the SBA to consider
the needs of each agency when establishing and maintaining
the database. Additionally, it requires the SBA to take
measures to reduce the administrative burden on SBIR program
participants whenever possible including, for example,
permitting updating by electronic means.
Section 114. Rural Outreach Program extension
This provision, which was not in either the House or the
Senate versions, extends the life and authorization for
appropriations for the Rural Outreach Program of the Small
Business Administration for four additional years through
fiscal year 2005. It is the intent of the three committees
that this program be evaluated on the same schedule and in
the same manner as the FAST program. Among other things, the
evaluation should examine the extent to which the programs
complement or duplicate each other. The evaluation should
also include recommendations for improvements to the program,
if any.
Title II--Business Loan Programs
Section 7(A) Program
The Conferees have been concerned that the availability of
smaller 7(a) guaranteed business loans has not been keeping
pace with the demands of the small business community. In
1994, SBA initiated the LowDoc pilot loan program to make
loans of $100,000 and less more readily available. In 1995,
the Congress established a guarantee level of 80% for LowDoc
loans. As requested in the Administration's 2001 Budget,
during consideration of H.R. 2615 in the House of
Representatives, the 80% guarantee was extended up to loans
of $150,000. The Senate and the House both acted to increase
the size of the LowDoc loans. In addition, both Houses agreed
to increase the guaranteed percentage from 80% to 85% in
anticipation that small business lenders will be more willing
to focus on the smaller sized loans.
In 1988, the Congress acted to establish the maximum 7(a)
loan guarantee amount at $750,000. In order to keep up with
inflation, the Committee bill increases the maximum
guaranteed amount to $1 million. Although a strict
inflationary increase in the maximum guaranteed amount would
be closer to $1.25 million, the Conferees believe it is
prudent to limit the increase to $1 million, which will leave
sufficient resources in the program for smaller loans.
The Conference Report also establishes a ceiling on the
maximum loan size of $2 million. It has been reported to the
Committee that the 7(a) guarantee has been used in
conjunction with large loans in excess of $2 million. Under
the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1991, appropriated subsidy
dollars are used based on the gross amount of the loan. In
these cases, the SBA loan guarantee is a relatively small
portion of the loan, and the Conferees have questioned
whether these loans meet the ``credit elsewhere'' standard
[[Page 24565]]
for 7(a) loans and whether this is a good use of appropriated
subsidy dollars. Therefore, the Committee agrees with the
House of Representatives and has approved a ceiling of $2
million for the gross amount of a 7(a) loan.
In an effort to reduce the size of the credit subsidy rate,
in 1997 Congress adopted a provision to reduce SBA's
liability for accrued interest on 7(a) loans that are in
default. Section 501 deletes this provision since the
intended savings from this provision have failed to
materialize.
For the past three years, the House and Senate Committees
on Small Business have received reports about the increased
number of early prepayments of large, long term SBA-
guaranteed 7(a) loans. Previously, as the result of an
increase in prepayments, the credit subsidy rate was adjusted
upwards for Fiscal Year 1998. Subsequently, the number of
prepayments continued to climb. In some cases, it has been
reported that some small businesses were using the 7(a)
program for short term bridge financing, when the program is
designed to help small businesses obtain long term credit at
a reasonable interest rate. The effect of early prepayments
is to reduce the availability of long term 7(a) loans to
small businesses that cannot obtain credit elsewhere.
The prepayment penalty approved by the Conferees would
assess a fee to the borrower for early prepayment of any 7(a)
loan with a term of 15 years or more. A penalty or fee will
be assessed against any prepayment in excess of 25% of the
outstanding amount of the loan during any of the first three
years after disbursement. Five percent will be assessed in
the first year, three percent in the second year, and one
percent in the third year. If a prepayment in excess of 25%
is made, the penalty will be assessed against the entire
outstanding balance of the loan.
In 1995, Congress increased the guarantee fees charged to
7(a) borrowers in order to reduce the credit subsidy rate for
the 7(a) program. The Senate agrees with provision, suggested
by SBA and adopted by the House of Representatives, which
simplifies the guarantee fee schedule. For loans totaling
$150,000 or less, the guarantee fee would be two percent of
the guarantee amount; for loans greater than $150,000 but
less than $700,000, the fee would be three percent; and for
loans of $700,000 or more, the guarantee fee would be three
and \1/2\ percent. In addition, the Conferees approved a new
provision designed to be an incentive for lenders to focus
more on smaller loans. This provision allows a lender to
retain 25% of the guarantee fee for loans of $150,000 or
less.
In 1997, Congress approved a new provision for the 504
Certified Development Company program which allows borrowers
to lease out 20% of the property being financed so long as
the remaining 80% is occupied by the borrower. The Conferees
have approved a similar provision for 7(a) borrowers. This
new provision permits the property to be financed with a 7(a)
loan 20 percent or less of the business space will be rented
to tenants with the borrower occupying 60% of the remaining
space.
Microloan program
This section makes programmatic and technical changes to
the Small Business Administration's microloan program to make
it more flexible to meet credit needs, more accessible to
micro entrepreneurs across the nation, and more streamlined
for lenders to make loans and provide management assistance.
The Senate Committee on Small Business worked closely with
industry and the SBA to develop these changes.
Congress created the microloan program as a pilot in 1991
(Public Law 102-140) to reach very small businesses that were
not being served by traditional lenders or SBA's credit
programs. Often minorities, women, and low-income
individuals, these microentrepreneurs needed very little
money to launch a business, but they could not get loans
because they were considered unreliable or risky borrowers by
traditional credit markets. Their often weak or non-existent
credit histories or limited business experience caused
traditional commercial lenders to shy away from making such
loans. To fill this credit need, the Microloan program was
designed to provide loans to non-profit intermediary lenders,
who in turn provide fixed-rate loans of not more than
$25,000, and on average, loans less than $10,000, to very
small businesses. In addition, lending intermediaries receive
an annual grant from the SBA to provide on-going technical
assistance to small businesses. The technical assistance is
fundamental to this program because it teaches
microentrepreneurs how to manage a successful business, and
running a successful business is key to loan repayment.
As industry experts and micro borrowers have testified
numerous times regarding the link between financing and
technical assistance, it is critical to the success of micro
enterprise, in general, and the SBA microloan program, in
particular. The low default rates of loans are evidence of
the tremendous success of this program. Since the first
microloan was made in 1992, the Federal government has had
only one default in its loans to the intermediary loan
providers. Equally impressive, the lending intermediaries
have had losses of only three to five percent from small
businesses, and the losses are fully covered by the mandatory
loss reserve that each intermediary must maintain. Because of
this successful track record, in 1997 the Congress voted to
transform the Microloan program from a demonstration program
to a permanent part of the array of SBA credit assistance
programs.
There are currently 156 intermediaries and 19 non-lending
technical assistance providers in the SBA Microloan Program.
To date, the lending intermediaries have made 10,230 loans
worth some $105 million. The SBA reports that for every
microloan, 1.7 jobs are created. The average loan to a
microentrepreneur is about $10,000, with interest rates
averaging 11 percent and an average term of 39 months.
Since the microloan program was started in 1991, it has
grown from 35 to 156 intermediaries. The market has also
changed. Thus, as the Senate Committee on Small Business
reviewed the program for reauthorization, it worked with
trade associations representing microlenders, the Small
Business Administration, and individual microlenders to craft
legislation that would meet market needs and foster the
success of the program.
Chief among those changes, in large part to reflect
inflation, is increasing the maximum loan amount and average
loan sizes. The maximum loan amount would increase from
$25,000 to $35,000; the average loan size for each
intermediary's portfolio would increase from $10,000 to
$15,000. For speciality lenders, those making smaller loans
and receiving additional technical assistance to make them,
this legislation would raise their average loan size from
$7,500 to $10,000.
There are 156 intermediaries out of the 200 Congressionally
authorized. Three states--Alaska, Louisiana and Wyoming--do
not have any intermediaries, though they are working to find
appropriate participants. While the need for more technical
assistance is partially to blame for the inability of the
program to grow and add intermediaries, the industry groups,
local economic development leaders and the SBA have asked
Congress to expand the program. This Conference Report not
only increases the appropriation for direct microloans and
technical assistance for each of the next three years to
allow the program to expand, but it also takes a balanced
approach to increasing the number of intermediaries
authorized. The House and Senate Conferees agreed to increase
the number of intermediaries from 200 to 300.
Title III--Certified Development Company Program
Under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 504
guaranteed loans for the following public policy goals are
eligible for loans guarantees up to $1,000,000:
Business district revitalization;
Eexpansion of exports;
Expansion of minority business development;
Rural development;
Enhanced economic competition;
Changes necessitated by Federal budget cutbacks; and
Business restructuring arising from Federal mandated
standards or policies affecting the environment or the safety
and health of employees.
Both the House and Senate bill add loans to women-owned
small businesses to the current list of public policy goals
specified under the Act.
In August 1988, Congress approved legislation (P.L. 100-
418) to increase the 504 loan guarantee ceiling to $750,000
from $500,000, except for a limited number of loans meeting
the special public policy purposes. In order to adjust this
amount to reflect inflation, the loan guarantee ceiling would
need to be increased to approximately $1,250,000. Therefore,
the Senate agreed with the position taken by the House and
approved an increase to $1,000,000. The House and Senate
further agreed to increase the maximum guaranteed amount on
loans made to meet the public policy purposes to $1,300,000
from $1,000,000.
program fees
In 1995, at the urging of the SBA and the National
Association of Development Companies (NADCO), the trade
organization that represents the 504 lenders and Certified
Development Companies (CDCs), both the House and Senate
agreed to legislation mandating that the 504 program be
supported entirely by fees paid by the private sector. These
new fees were imposed beginning in FY 1996. Subsequently, the
SBA undertook an extensive review of the performance of the
504 program, and the credit subsidy rate, which determines
the amount of money that must be maintained in the loss
reserve account for this program, was increased from 0.57% to
6.85%, an increase of 1200%. Since the 504 program was being
funded only by fees paid by the private sector, the fees paid
by the borrower in FY 1997 were increased from 0.125% to
0.875%, which placed a financial burden on 504 borrowers. The
Conferees are pleased to note that since FY 1997 the credit
subsidy rate estimate has dropped resulting in a decrease in
borrower fees from 0.875% to 0.472% for FY 2001. The bill
authorizes SBA to collect these fees to offset the credit
subsidy cost through September 30, 2003.
premier certified lenders program
In October 1994, Congress approved the Premier Certified
Lenders Program on a pilot
[[Page 24566]]
basis (P.L. 103-403). In December 1997, this pilot program
was extended by Congress, and the limitation on the number of
CDCs that could participate in the PCLP was removed (P.L.
105-135). The Senate noted the success of the program and has
agreed with the House of Representatives to make the PCLP a
permanent part of the 504 program. In making the PCLP pilot a
permanent part of the 504 program, the Conferees expect the
SBA to continue its efforts to work with the CDC community to
take complete advantage of the strengths of the most
successful and well-run CDCs.
asset sales
In response to the plans by the SBA to undertake the sale
of assets held by the Agency, the both Senate and House
approved a provision that requires the SBA to notify CDCs
prior to including a 504 loan in an asset sale. The Committee
adopted this section in order to insure there is an open
dialogue and cooperation between the Agency and the relevant
CDCs. For the past four years, the Committee has encouraged
the SBA to move forward with its asset sales program;
however, we do not believe this step forward should
necessarily harm its lending partners.
loan liquidation program
In response to reports about low recoveries after the
default of a 504 loan, the Congress approved legislation in
1996 to establish the Loan Liquidation Pilot Program (P.L.
104-208). The pilot liquidation program allowed up to 20
qualified CDCs to liquidate loans that they originated. It
was implemented by the SBA in June 1997. The results to date
for the pilot program are encouraging, and the Conferees have
concluded that it is in the best interest of the 504 program
to allow additional CDCs to conduct their own liquidation and
foreclosure activities. The Committee is pleased to note that
the recovery estimate for FY 2001 has increased for the first
time since 1995. The Administration's estimate for FY 2001 is
31 percent, and the assumptions used by OMB and the SBA do
not include an increase in recoveries that should result from
making the Loan Liquidation Program permanent. The Conferees
urge the SBA to continue its efforts and to make maximum use
of the Loan Liquidation Program so that the recovery level
will increase further.
A number of CDCs have demonstrated the ability through the
pilot program and other lending programs in which they
participate, to perform such activities, and have indicated a
willingness to perform such functions to supplement SBA's
activities in this area. Accordingly, the Conference Report
makes the pilot liquidation program permanent and requires
SBA to permit certain CDCs to foreclose and liquidate
defaulted loans that they have originated under the 504 loan
program.
In order to participate in the loan liquidation program, a
CDC must have made at least 10 loans per year for the past
three fiscal years, and it must have at least one employee
with two years of liquidation experience or be a member of
the Accredited Lenders Program with at least one employee
with two years of liquidation experience. Representatives of
either group must complete a training program developed by
SBA. Participants in the pilot liquidation program and
Premier Certified Lenders automatically qualify for the
permanent liquidation program.
CDCs eligible to participate in liquidation activities are
required to perform all liquidation and foreclosure functions
pursuant to a liquidation plan approved by SBA. The
Conference Report also authorizes CDCs to take other actions,
in lieu of full liquidation or foreclosure, to mitigate loan
losses pursuant to a workout plan. Prior to a CDC commencing
liquidation or foreclosure activities and prior to engaging
in other actions to mitigate loan losses, a CDC is required
to provide the SBA with a liquidation plan or workout plan,
as the case may be, for approval. The SBA has 15 days to
approve a liquidation plan or a workout plan. The legislation
further permits CDCs to litigate matters relating to their
liquidation activities subject to SBA monitoring of such
litigation.
SBA is authorized to suspend or revoke the authority of a
CDC to liquidate loans if the CDC either does not meet the
eligibility requirements or fails to comply with any
statutory or regulatory requirement relating to the
foreclosure or liquidation of loans or any other applicable
provision of law. CDCs are also prohibited from taking any
action that would result in an actual or apparent conflict of
interest in connection with the liquidation of their loans.
The bill requires the SBA to submit annually to Congress a
report on the results of the delegation of authority to CDCs
to liquidate and foreclose loans and a comparison of such
results to SBA's liquidation performance.
Title IV--Corrections to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
definitions
The provisions generally make some technical improvements
to the operations of the SBIC Program. Under current law,
national banks, member banks of the Federal Reserve, and
nonmember insured banks as permitted by State law are allowed
to invest in SBICs. The Senate and House Committees approved
a provision to allow any Federal Savings Association to make
similar investments in SBICs.
The Committees also approved a provision to clarify the
what is meant by the term ``long-term'' as found in Section
103 of the Small Business Investment Act. It is the
Committees' understanding that the SBA has construed ``long
term'' to mean a minimum of five years for all SBIC
investments other than those made to ``disadvantaged
businesses,'' when ``long term'' is construed to mean four
years. The Committee believes the Agency's interpretation of
``long-term'' to be overly restrictive. Under the Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the accounting
principles that govern business commerce in the United
States, the term ``long-term'' is defined as any period of
time greater than one year. Therefore, the Conferees have
adopted a definition of ``long-term'' to be a period of time
of not less than one year.
subsidy fees
The President's FY 2001 budget request for SBA, as amended,
included a ``0'' credit subsidy rate for the SBIC Debenture
program. The House and Senate Committees have been informed
by SBA staff that the income generated by fees paid by the
SBICs to SBA will actually exceed the amounts needed to fund
the reserve account required under the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a). The Conferees believe it is
important that the SBICs should not be required to pay more
in fees than is necessary to bring the credit subsidy rate to
``0.'' Therefore, the Conferees have adopted a provision,
similar to the one it adopted for the 504 Development Company
Program in 1996, which directs the SBA to reduce the annual
fee paid by the SBIC from 1 percent to the amount necessary
to reduce the credit subsidy rate to ``0.'' The new provision
applies to the SBIC Debenture and Participating Securities
programs.
distributions
The Senate Committee approved a technical change that
permits a qualifying SBIC to make a quarterly tax
distribution any time during the applicable calendar quarter.
The House passed a similar provision in H.R. 3845. Conferees
concur with this provision. Under current law, SBICs may make
prioritized payment distributions, profit distributions, and
other optional distributions on any date with prior SBA
approval. Tax distributions, however, may only be made at the
end of calendar year quarters. The SBIC community has
informed the Senate Committee that the practical impact of
this restriction is that SBICs are forced to delay otherwise
permitted interim distributions (including tax distributions)
to the end of a quarter or split their distributions into two
distributions. Postponing an entire distribution to the end
of a quarter has negative cash flow and internal rate of
return (IRR) implications. Consequently, most SBICs decide to
split their distributions, making tax distributions at the
end of the calendar quarter, while making all other
distributions at any time during the quarter. Splitting
distributions requires the preparation, submission, and SBA
review of two sets of documents. The result is an inefficient
use of time and resources by SBA and the SBICs.
Title V--Reauthorization of Small Business Programs
Sec. 502. Reauthorization of Small Business Programs
Title I of the bill authorizes appropriations for SBA's
business loan programs and certain other SBA programs.
Included among the loan programs are Section 7(a) Guaranteed
Business Loans, 504 Development Company Loans, Microloans,
Disaster Loans, and Small Business Investment Company
Debentures and Participating Securities.
Funding for these SBA programs is detailed in the following
chart. As indicated, the bill is a three year authorization.
The Conferees have carefully considered the Administration's
funding request for each program as well as recommendations
from small business owners, individual entrepreneurs, the
lending community, and members of this Conference.
PROGRAM LEVELS FOR SBA REAUTHORIZATION BILL
[In millions of dollars unless otherwise noted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBA 3 year
Program Current level FY01 budget authorization Reauthorization Reauthorization Reauthorization
FYO1 request request 01/02/03 bill 2001 bill 2002-2003 bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7(a) (in billions)....................... $9.8 $11.5 $14.5/15/16 $14.5 $15 $16
504 (in billions)........................ $3.5 $3.75 $5/5.25/5.5 $4 $4.5 $5
[[Page 24567]]
SBIC:
Debentures........................... $800 $500 $1,000/1,200/1,400 $1,500 $2,500 $3,000
Participating Securities............. $1,350/$2,000 $2,000/2,500/ $2,500 $3,500 $4,000
3,000
Microloan:
Technical Assistance................. $23.2 $45.0 $59/80/100 $45 $60 $70
Direct Loans......................... $29 $60 $75/80/85 $60 $80 $100
Guaranteed Loans..................... carryover 0 $40/40/40 $50 $50 $50
Delta.................................... $1,000 $0/0/0 $500 $500 $500
Surety Bond Guarantee:
General Program...................... $1,800 $1,700 $2,000/2,000/2,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
Preferred Program.................... .............. .............. .................... 50% of total 50% of total 50% of total
SCORE.................................... $3.5 $5.0 $5.9/8/8.5 $5 $6 $7
SBDC..................................... $84.5 $85 $95/95/95 $125 $125 $125
HUBZone.................................. $2.0 $5.0 $6/6/6 $10 $10 $10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
drug-free workplace program
In 1998, the Congress enacted the Drug-Free Workplace
Demonstration Program under the leadership of Senator Paul
Coverdell of Georgia. The purpose of the program is to
provide financial and technical assistance to small business
concerns seeking to establish a drug-free workplace program.
The law authorized $10 million in FY 1999 and 2000. Section
809 extends the Drug-Free Workplace Program for FY 2001, 2002
and 2003 and authorizes $5 million for each in the period.
The Conference Report recognizes the important work of
Senator Coverdell and names the program in his honor.
hubzone program
This subsection would increase the annual authorization for
the HUBZone Program to $10,000,000 for fiscal years 2001,
2002, and 2003. It is the Conferees intention that funds
appropriated under the authorization in this subsection shall
be used for direct HUBZone Program expenses and should not be
diverted by the SBA for any other program or account that is
not part of the HUBZone Program.
very small business program
This section would extend the Very Small Business Program
pilot. The pilot program is targeted at firms seeking to do
business with the Federal government with 15 or fewer
employees and with less than $1 million in annual receipts.
To date, SBA has had insufficient experience and data to
evaluate the program, which SBA failed to implement until
March 4, 1999, more than four years after Congress enacted
the program. The Conferees anticipate that new reporting
requirements set forth in the Federal Procurement Data System
will provide SBA with sufficient data to evaluate the program
over the next three years.
socially and economically disadvantaged businesses program
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-
355; 15 U.S.C. 644 note) establishes procurement procedures
to help small business concerns owned and controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals to meet
certain Federal procurement goals. The procurement procedures
are scheduled to terminate on September 30, 2000. The
Conference Report approved an extension of the program for
three years, through September 30, 2003.
cosponsorship
This program provides a means of leveraging the scarce
resources at SBA, the Agency engages in a variety of
cosponsorships with public and private sector organizations.
Current statutory language refers only to training as a
permitted cosponsored activity with for-profit entities. SBA
defines training as being limited to narrower topics of
interest to relatively small numbers of business owners or
those in certain types of businesses. There are, however,
broader business-related topics, such as the effective use of
technology, e-commerce, exporting/importing, about which all
small businesses should be informed and educated.
The SBA has recommended that the terms ``information and
education'' be added to the types of assistance that can be
provided to small businesses. SBA believes this change will
give it the flexibility in the types of assistance that can
be provided to small businesses. The Conferees agreed with
the SBA's recommendation, concluding that while traditional
training in these areas may also be offered, the need to
reach broader audiences with timely, updated information and
education is vital to the success of the largest number of
small businesses.
Title VI: HUBZone Program
The HUBZone program aims to direct portions of Federal
contracting dollars into areas of the country that in the
past have been out of the economic mainstream. HUBZone areas,
which include qualified census tracts, poor rural counties,
and Indian reservations, often are relatively out-of-the-way
places that the stream of commerce passes by, and thus tend
to be in low or moderate income areas. These areas can also
include certain rural communities and tend, generally, to be
low-traffic areas that do not have a reliable customer base
to support business development. As a result, business has
been reluctant to move into these areas. It simply has not
been profitable, without a customer base to keep them
operating.
The HUBZone Act seeks to overcome this problem by making it
possible for the Federal government to become a customer for
small businesses that locate in HUBZones. While a small
business works to establish its regular customer base, a
Federal contract can help it stabilize its revenues and
remain profitable. This gives small business a chance to get
a foothold and provides jobs to these areas. New business and
new jobs mean new life and hope for these communities.
Since the HUBZone Act was adopted in the Small Business
Reauthorization Act of 1997, the Small Business
Administration has been implementing the program. On March
22, 1999, SBA began accepting applications from interested
firms. Experience to date has revealed several difficulties
with implementation, which the Senate Committee has sought to
rectify in this legislation.
Subtitle A--HUBZones in Native America Act
One such problem was an unintended consequence of wording
in the 1997 legislation that inadvertently excluded Indian
Tribal enterprises and Alaska Native Corporations from
participation. The definition of ``HUBZone small business
concern'' specified that eligible small businesses must be
100% owned and controlled by U.S. citizens. This provision
sought to insure that HUBZone benefits, financed by the
American taxpayer, should be available only for U.S.
beneficiaries.
However, since citizens are ``born or naturalized'' under
the Fourteenth Amendment, ownership by citizens implies
ownership by individual flesh-and-blood human beings.
Corporate owners and Tribal government owners are not ``born
or naturalized'' in the usual meanings of those terms. Thus,
the Small Business Administration found that it had no
authority to certify small businesses owned wholly or partly
by Alaska Native Corporations and Tribal governments.
Since Native American communities were always intended to
benefit from HUBZone opportunities, the Committee has
included language to make such firms eligible. On many
reservations, particularly the isolated ones, the only
investment resources available are the Tribal governments.
Excluding those governments from investing in their own
reservations means, in practical terms, excluding those
reservations from the HUBZone program entirely. Similarly,
Alaska Native Corporations have corporate resources that are
necessary to make real investments in rural Alaska and to
provide jobs to Alaska Natives who currently have no hope of
getting them.
The Senate Committee was guided by three broad principles
in crafting this legislation. First, no firm should be made
eligible solely by virtue of who it is. For example, Alaska
Native Corporations will not be eligible solely because they
are Alaska Native Corporations. Instead, Alaska Native
Corporations and Indian Tribal enterprises should be eligible
only if they agree to advance the goals of the HUBZone
program: job creation and economic development in the areas
that need it most.
Second, the Senate Committee sought to make the HUBZone
program conform to existing Native American policy. The
Committee is aware of controversy over whether to change
Alaska Native policy so that Alaska Natives exercise
governmental jurisdiction over their lands, just like Tribes
in the Lower 48 States do on both their reservations and
trust lands. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
of 1971 deliberately refrained from creating Alaska Native
jurisdictions in Alaska, and this Committee's legislation is
intended to conform to existing practice in ANCSA.
The third principle underlying this bill is that Alaska
Natives and Indian Tribes should participate on as even a
playing field as possible. Exact equivalence is not possible
because the Federal relationship with Alaska Natives differs
significantly from the relationship with Indian Tribes, and
also because
[[Page 24568]]
Alaska is a very different State from the Lower 48. However,
ANCSA provided that Alaska Natives should be eligible to
participate in Federal Indian programs ``on the same basis as
other Native Americans.'' The House Conferees have agreed to
adopt the Senate provision.
Subtitle B--Other HUBZone Provisions
Subtitle B contains several technical changes to clarify
interpretive issues concerning the original HUBZone Act, as
well as new language to correct an unforeseen situation
regarding procurement of commodities. Subtitle B makes a
further amendment to the categories of eligible HUBZone
firms, to include the HUBZone program as one of the tools
Community Development Corporations can use in rebuilding
their communities and neighborhoods.
The Conference Report includes a technical correction to
the definition of ``qualified census tract.'' It also makes
two major substantive changes to the definition of
``qualified nonmetropolitan county.''
First, the definition is clarified to ensure that
nonmetropolitan counties in the HUBZone program are those
that were considered to be such as of the time of the last
decennial (10 year) census. The HUBZone program relies on
census tracts selected in metropolitan areas based on the
last census, so that a metropolitan county--in order to have
such census tracts--must have been considered metropolitan at
that time. A nonmetropolitan county may be eligible as a
HUBZone based on income data collected during the census or
on unemployment data produced annually by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
During the ten-year period between each census, some
counties become so integrated into the commercial activities
of a metropolitan area that they are moved from the
nonmetropolitan category to the metropolitan category. Such
counties would become ineligible for HUBZone participation.
They would not have been metropolitan counties at the time of
the last census, so no qualified census tracts would have
been selected there. They would also no longer be
nonmetropolitan counties, so the income and unemployment
tests available to such counties would no longer apply. Thus,
counties that change from nonmetropolitan to metropolitan, in
the period between each census, would become ineligible until
the next census is taken. The Conference Report corrects this
problem by freezing, for HUBZone purposes, the categories of
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties as they stood at
the time of the last census.
The second major change to the definition of ``qualified
nonmetropolitan county'' is the addition of a grandfathering
clause. Because the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issues
new county-level unemployment data annually, nonmetropolitan
counties may shift into and out of eligibility on a yearly
basis. The Committee believes that this type of movement is
too fluid for a program that should be stable in its first
few years. Companies will be confused about the merits of the
program if firms lose and gain eligibility from year to year.
A company will not want to invest in such a county only to
have it suddenly become ineligible, due to new BLS data,
before the company has even had the opportunity to recoup its
investment by participating in the HUBZone program.
The legislation seeks to stabilize this situation by
looking at the unemployment picture over a three-year period
for nonmetropolitan counties. It also provides that companies
in such a county will have a one year period to pursue
HUBZone opportunities and wrap up its activities under the
program, after such a county becomes ineligible due to new
BLS data. A similar one year period is provided for changes
that may result due to enactment of this legislation.
commodities procurement
In 1999, the Senate Committee became aware of potential
implementation problems in HUBZone procurements of certain
commodities, particularly food-aid commodities purchased by
the Department of Agriculture (USDA), that could lead to
unintended and anti-competitive results. Because bids for
commodities generally tend to fall within a narrow range of
prices, the 10% price evaluation preference that currently
exists could be overwhelmingly decisive. In such purchases, a
handful of HUBZone firms could secure significant portions of
these markets. This, in turn, could prompt other vendors to
abandon these markets, thus reducing USDA's vendor base and
reducing competition. These are results that would be
contrary to the goals set forth in Sec. 2 of the Small
Business Act.
To prevent irreparable harm to USDA's vendor base until the
matter could be addressed more comprehensively in this
legislation, Senator Bond sponsored a proviso in the Fiscal
2000 Agriculture Appropriations Act. As adopted in the
conference report, Sec. 751 of that Act limited the price
evaluation preference to 5% for up to half of the total
dollar value of each commodity in a particular tender
(solicitation). It also prohibited contract awards to a
HUBZone firm that would be of such magnitude as to require
the firm to subcontract to purchase the commodity being
procured, since such a scenario would simply allow these
firms to purchase commodities from subcontractors and in turn
sell them to the Government at inflated prices.
The legislation seeks to address this issue on a more
permanent basis. The Conferees are aware that USDA relies
upon a complex computer program to evaluate commodities bids,
and thus the Conference Report seeks to set a long-term
policy that will not require frequent and expensive changes
to this software. Although the legislation reduces the level
of HUBZone program incentives that otherwise would be
available under the HUBZone Act, the bill still seeks to
ensure substantial awards to HUBZone concerns, while
protecting existing incentives available to other types of
small business concerns. The Conferees intend that these
incentives help commodities procurements contribute their
fair share toward achieving the Government-wide goal of 23%
of prime contract dollars to small business concerns, but
without the anti-competitive effects of awarding overwhelming
shares of the market to HUBZone firms.
community development corporations
For reasons similar to the problems preventing HUBZone
program participation by Indian Tribal enterprises and Alaska
Native Corporations, small businesses owned by Community
Development Corporations were also inadvertently made
ineligible by the original HUBZone Act. The Conference Report
has included a provision to correct this problem. As with
Tribal enterprises and Alaska Native Corporations, addressed
in Subtitle A of this Title, Community Development
Corporations are not made automatically eligible. These firms
must agree to advance the job-creation goals of the HUBZone
program. Specifically, as other businesses must do, these
enterprises must maintain their principal office in a HUBZone
and employ 35% of their workforce from one or more HUBZones.
Title VII: National Women's Business Council Reauthorization
The Senate bill would re-authorize the National Women's
Business Council for three years, from FY 2001 to 2003, and
to increase the annual appropriation from $600,000 to $1
million. The increase in funding will allow the Council to:
support new and ongoing research; produce and distribute
reports and recommendations prepared by the Council; and
create an infrastructure to assist states in developing
women's business advisory councils, coordinate summits and
establish an interstate communication network. The House
Conferees agree in part with the Senate's title.
The increase will also be used to assist Federal agencies
meet the procurement goal for women-owned businesses
established by Congress in 1994 under section 15(g) of the
Small Business Act. By law, Federal agencies must strive to
award women-owned small businesses at least 5 percent of the
total amount of Federal prime contract dollars. The Conferees
feel strongly that Federal agencies should meet the five-
percent goal, and it supports the Council's plan to expand
its efforts to increase the percentage of prime contracts
that go to women-owned businesses. Based on current data,
women are not receiving awards proportionate to their
presence in the economy. For example, women-owned businesses
make up 38 percent of all small businesses, yet women-owned
businesses received only 2.42 percent of the $189 billion in
Federal prime contracts in FY1999.
According to the National Foundation for Women Business
Owners, over the past decade the number of women-owned
businesses in this country has grown by 103 percent to an
estimated 9.1 million firms. They generate almost $3.6
trillion in sales annually and employ more than 27.5 million
workers. With the impact of women-owned businesses on our
economy increasing at an unprecedented rate, Congress relies
on the Council to serve as its eyes and ears as it
anticipates the needs of this burgeoning entrepreneurial
sector. Since it was established in 1988, the Council, which
is bi-partisan, has provided important unbiased advice and
counsel to Congress.
This Conference Report allows the Council to continue to
perform its duties at the level it has done so far, as well
as expand its activities to support initiatives that are
creating the infrastructure for women's entrepreneurship at
the state and local level.
Title VIII: Miscellaneous Provisions
Loan Application Processing
The Senate Conferees agreed with the House provision
directing the SBA to conduct a study in one year from the
date of enactment to determine the average time SBA requires
to process an SBA-guaranteed loan.
application of ownership requirements
The Conferees agreed to a provision to clarify the impact
of community property state laws to determine the eligibility
for applicants for assistance under SBA's credit programs.
The new provision applies to the Small Business Act and the
Small Business Investment Act of 1958. It states that
eligibility of an applicant under the SBA's credit programs
will be determine without regard to any ownership interest of
a spouse arising solely form the application of the community
property laws of a State for purposes of determining marital
interests.
[[Page 24569]]
subcontracting preference for veterans
The House Conferees agreed with the Senate provision to
clarify that service-disabled veterans are on the same
preference level as small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) and
women-owned small businesses for Federal contracting
opportunities. When the Congress enacted the Veterans
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act (P.L.
106-50), it was not absolutely clear that the contracting
preferences were to apply specifically to service-disabled
veterans. The Conferees intend for this section to clear up
any misunderstandings that might remain.
small business development center program funding
The House Conferees agreed with the Senate provision to
clarify the funding formula for States to receive funds under
the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) program. This
funding formula was developed in close consultation with the
SBA and the SBDC association. Importantly, the formula sets
forth how the minimum funding level will be applied. The
Conference Agreement assures that each SBDC will receive a
minimum of $500,000 annually unless the annual appropriation
from Congress is less than $81,500,000. If the annual
appropriation is more than $90,000,000, the minimum annual
amount shall be $500,000 plus a percentage amount equal to
the percentage amount by which the appropriation exceeds
$90,000,000.
national veterans business development corporation correction
The Conferees have agreed to a technical change that defers
for one year the requirement that the National Veterans
Business Development Corporation provide matching funds. The
authorization level for the Corporation to receive Federal
funds has been adjusted to the following: $4,000,000 in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $2,000,000 in fiscal years
2003 and 2004.
private sector resources for score
The Committees on Small Business for the Senate and House
of Representatives have followed the success and growth of
the SCORE program over the past five years. Much of the
success or the program is tied to its ability to obtain in-
kind and monetary contributions from the private sector to
supplement the annual Congressional appropriation. Companies
have donated computers and Internet services to support the
efforts of 14,000 SCORE volunteers to provide counseling to
small businesses throughout the United States. The section
approved by the Conferees makes it clear that SCORE may
solicit cash and in-kind contributions from the private
sector to carry out its functions under the Small Business
Act.
contract data collection
The Senate Conferees agreed with the House Conferees to
include a new section that makes improvements in the
collection of data on the growing practice by Federal
agencies to bundle multiple contract requirements into one
large contract. This practice has had a detrimental impact on
the ability of small businesses to compete for Federal
contracts. The new section clarifies the definition of a
bundled contract and requires the SBA to prepare an annual
report for the House and Senate Committees on Small Business.
The section also strengthens the ability of the Administrator
of SBA to challenge an agency decision to bundle multiple
contract requirements.
procurement program for women-owned small business concerns
The Senate Conferees agreed with the House Conferees to
include a new section to give Federal agencies the authority
to restrict competition for any contract for the procurement
of goods or services by the Federal government to small
businesses owned and controlled by women who are economically
disadvantaged. The SBA Administrator may waive the
requirement that the businesses must be owned by women who
are economically disadvantaged if it is determined the
business is in an industry in which small business concerns
owned and controlled by women are substantially under
represented.
The purpose of H.R. 5545 the ``New Markets Venture Capital
Program Act of 2000,'' is to promote economic development,
wealth and job opportunities in low income (LI) areas by
encouraging venture capital investments and offering
technical assistance to small enterprises. The central goal
of the legislation is to fulfill the unmet equity investment
needs of small enterprises primarily located in LI areas.
The bill creates a developmental venture capital program by
amending the Small Business Investment Act to authorize the
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to enter into
participation agreements with 10 to 20 New Markets Venture
Capital (NMVC) companies in a public/private partnership. It
further authorizes SBA to guarantee debentures of NMVC
companies to enable them to make venture capital investments
in smaller enterprises in LI areas. And it authorizes SBA to
make grants to NMVC companies, and to other entities, for the
purpose of providing technical assistance to smaller
enterprises that are financed, or expected to be financed, by
such companies.
The Act will also enhance the ability of existing Small
Business Investment Companies (SBICs) to invest in LI areas.
It allows them to have access to the leverage capital
authorized under the program, without entering into a
participation agreement with SBA to act as an NMVC company.
Finally, enhances the ability of existing Specialized Small
Business Investment Companies (SSBICs) to invest in LI areas.
It allows them to have access to the operational assistance
grant funds authorized under the program, also without
entering into a participation agreement with SBA to act as an
NMVC company.
Despite our unprecedented economic prosperity, there remain
places in America that have yet to reap the benefits of this
prosperity. Although many Americans enjoy strong income and
wage growth, millions in underserved areas still do not have
access to jobs or entrepreneurial opportunities.
For example, between 1997 and 1998, the median income for
the nation's households rose 3.5 percent in real terms. Yet
12.7 percent of Americans (34.5 million people) still live
below the poverty level. These 34.5 million people live in
the inner cities and rural areas of America, where jobs are
scarce and there is little to attract would-be small business
investors.
The overall poverty rate for the U.S. in 1998 was 12.7
percent, but the poverty rate among both African American and
Latino populations was 26 percent--double the national
average. In rural communities, poverty remains a persistent
problem. Job growth is well below the national average, with
unemployment hovering at or above 14%. Additionally, the
unemployment levels in many urban communities range from 7.5%
for African Americans to 6.4% for Hispanics. Both are nearly
double the national average.
It is not enough to merely create jobs in these pockets of
poverty. Rather, we must create a small business backbone, an
economic infrastructure to enable these communities to
develop their full potential and participate fully in the
economic mainstream.
H.R. 5545 uses SBA resources targeted to corporations and
small businesses that want to do business in the untapped
markets of our underserved communities. It is a wise
investment in the hopes of millions of families who are not
sharing in the American Dream.
There is a pressing need for this legislation. There are
virtually no institutional sources of equity capital in
distressed communities. The national venture capital industry
for community development comprises only 25 firms managing
approximately $157 million. Only 14 of those are capitalized
at $5 million or more--the absolute minimum for economic
viability.
H.R. 5545 will tap unrealized resources in our nation, thus
benefiting our economy as a whole. It will increase the
attractiveness of investment in places with high unemployment
and too few businesses. The more the business community knows
about these new markets, the more likely they will invest in
them--and the more businesses that invest in these new
markets, the more these areas will share in our nation's
economic prosperity. This legislation provides a road map for
the next generation to succeed, and it makes good sense from
both a public policy and business standpoint.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
Designates the bill as the ``New Markets Venture Capital
Program Act of 2000.''
Section 2. New Markets Venture Capital Program
This Section amends Title III of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958 by adding new Sections 351 through 368
to establish the ``New Markets Venture Capital Program.''
H.R. 5545 will add the following new sections to the Small
Business Investment Act:
Section 351. Definitions
Establishes definitions for developmental venture capital,
New Markets Venture Capital Companies, low- or moderate-
income geographic area, operational assistance, participation
agreement, and Specialized Small Business Investment
Companies as used in the legislation.
``Developmental venture capital'' is defined as equity
capital invested in small businesses, with a primary
objective of fostering economic development in low income
geographic areas. For the purposes of this Act, the Committee
considers equity capital investments to mean stock of any
class in a corporation, stock options, warrants, limited
partnership interests, membership interests in a limited
liability company, joint venture interests, or subordinated
debt with equity features if such debt provides only for
interest payments contingent upon earnings. Such investments
must not require amortization. They may be guaranteed; but
neither the Equity capital investment nor the guarantee may
be secured.
A ``New Markets Venture Capital Company'' is defined as a
company that has been approved by the Administration to
operate under the New Markets Venture Capital Program, and
has entered into a participation agreement with the
Administration to make equity investments and provide
technical assistance to small enterprises located in low- or
moderate-income areas.
The term ``low income geographic area'' means a census
tract, or the equivalent county division as defined by the
Bureau of the Census for purposes of defining poverty
[[Page 24570]]
areas, in which the poverty rate is not less than 20 percent.
In those areas in a metropolitan area 50 percent or more of
the households must have an income equal to less than 60
percent of the median income for the area. In rural areas the
median household income for a tract must not exceed 80
percent of the statewide median household income. This
definition also includes any area located within a HUBZone,
an Urban Empowerment Zone or an Urban Enterprise Community,
or a rural Empowerment Zone or a Rural Enterprise Community.
The term ``low income individual'' is included for the
purpose of allowing waivers of the low income area
requirement for areas of significant economic disadvantage
that may not otherwise qualify. A low income individual is
defined as someone whose income does not exceed 80 percent of
the area median income in metropolitan areas, or 80 percent
of either the area or statewide median income in rural areas.
The term ``operational assistance'' is defined as
management, marketing, and other technical assistance that
assists a small business concern with business development.
``Participation agreement'' is defined as an agreement
between the Administration and an NMVC Company detailing the
company's operating plan and investment criteria; and
requiring that investments be made in smaller enterprises at
least 80 percent of which are located in low income
geographic areas.
``Specialized Small Business Investment Company'' means any
small business investment company that was licensed under
section 301(d) as in effect before September 30, 1996.
Section 352. Purposes
Describes the purposes of the Act, which are:
(1) to promote economic development and the creation of
wealth and job opportunities in low- or moderate-income
geographic areas and among individuals living in such areas
by encouraging developmental venture capital investments in
smaller enterprises primarily located in such areas; and
(2) to establish a developmental venture capital program,
with the mission of addressing the unmet equity investment
needs of small entrepreneurs locate in low- or moderate-
income areas; to be administered by the Small Business
Administration; to enter into a participation agreement with
NMVC companies; to guarantee debentures of NMVC companies to
enable each such company to make developmental venture
capital investments in smaller enterprises in low- or
moderate-income geographic areas; and to make grants to NMVC
companies for the purpose of providing operational assistance
to smaller enterprises financed, or expected to be financed,
by such companies.
Section 353. Establishment
Authorizes the SBA to establish the NMVC Program, under
which the SBA may form New Markets Venture Capital companies
by entering into participation agreements with firms that are
granted final approval under the requirements set forth in
Section 354 and formed for the purposes outlined in Section
352.
This Section also authorizes SBA to guarantee the
debentures issued by the NMVC Companies as provided in
Section 355; and to make operational assistance grants to
NMVC Companies and other entities in accordance with Section
358.
Section 354. Selection of the New Markets Venture Capital
Companies
Establishes the criteria to be followed by SBA in selecting
the NMVC Companies. This section provides for specific
selection criteria to be developed by the SBA--based on the
criteria enumerated in this legislation--and designed to
ensure that a variety of investment models are chosen and
that appropriate public policy goals are addressed.
Geographic dispersion must also be taken into account in the
selection process.
H.R. 5545 requires Program participants to satisfy the
following application requirements:
(1) Each NMVC must be a newly formed, for-profit entity
with at least $5 million of contributed capital or binding
capital commitments from non-Federal investors, and with the
primary objective of economic development in low- or
moderate-income geographic areas.
(2) Each NMVC's management team must be experienced in some
form of community development or venture capital financing.
(3) Each NMVC must concentrate its activities on serving
its investment areas, and submit a proposal that will expand
economic opportunities and address the unmet capital needs
within the investment areas.
(4) Each applicant must submit a strong proposal to provide
operational assistance, including the possible use of
outside, licensed professionals.
(5) Each NMVC must have binding commitments (in cash or in-
kind) for operational assistance and overhead, payable or
available over a multi-year period not to exceed 10 years, in
an amount equal to 30% of its committed and contributed
capital. These commitments may be from any non-SBA source and
the cash portion may be invested in an annuity payable semi-
annually over a multi-year period not to exceed 10 years.
The Committee is well aware that it will be difficult for
some NMVCs to raise their entire operational assistance match
during the application stage. Those NMVCs that are unable to
raise the required match, but have submitted a reasonable
plan to the Administrator to meet the requirement, may be
granted a conditional approval from the Administrator and be
allowed to draw one dollar of federal matching funds for
every dollar of private funds raised provided that (for the
purpose of final approval) they raise at least 20 percent of
the required matching funds, and have at least 20 percent of
the match on hand when applying for additional grant funds.
The Committee believes that it is important to give NMVCs
the flexibility to obtain the required private operational
assistance funds, however, from a safety and soundness
standpoint, federal assistance funds should not be placed at
greater risk than private assistance funds.
This conditional approval shall be made with the
expectation that the required capital funding commitments
will be obtained within two years of the conditional
approval.
The bill also authorizes SBA to select firms that have
experience with investing in enterprises located in low
income areas to participate as NMVCs. SBA will enter into an
agreement with each NMVC setting forth the specific terms of
that firm's participation in the program. Each agreement will
be tailored to the particular NMVC's operations and will be
based on the NMVC's own proposal, submitted as part of the
NMVC's application form. The agreement will require that
investments be made by the NMVC in smaller enterprises, at
least 80% of which are located in low income geographic
areas.
In order for an investment to be counted toward the 80%
goal under H.R. 5545, the investment must be made in a small
business concern located in an LI area. This ensures that the
New Markets Venture Capital Company Program will focus
investment capital where it is most needed, rather than
duplicating existing SBA programs.
The Committee believes that the targeting of low-income
communities is the most important element of H.R. 4530. If
Congress and the Administration are serious about helping our
nation's low-income cities, towns, and rural areas we should
demonstrate our commitment by ensuring that this bill is
focused on these areas. The Committee has accomplished this
by requiring that 80% of all investment will concentrate on
those needing this help the most.
By clearly focusing this legislation on the communities
that need assistance the most, the Committee has maximized
the impact of this program. It is also the Committee's view
that by investing the majority of funds in low income
communities, we will not only provide the benefit of
increased opportunities for working families, but H.R. 4530
will also provide the benefit of improving the physical
community. This double benefit ensures that the resources
spent under H.R. 4530 will provide the maximum economic
impact on the low- or moderate-income communities to which
this bill is targeted.
The Committee recognizes that the legislation may offer
some benefits to working families located outside of the LMI
areas as defined by the legislation. To address this concern,
up to 20% of a New Markets Venture Capital Company's
investments are permitted in those businesses that are in
need of equity investment, but fall outside the LMI areas as
defined by the legislation. However, it is the Committee's
strong opinion that to reduce the targeting below 80% would
significantly diminish the impact in the LMI areas, and would
be contrary to the intent of the program. In addition, the
Act includes a provision allowing the Administrator to waive
the low income designation requirements for areas of
significant economic distress that would not otherwise
qualify.
Section 355. Debentures
Authorizes SBA to guarantee debentures issued by NMVC
companies. The terms of the guaranteed debentures issued
under this section may not exceed 15 years and the maximum
total guarantee for any NMVC company shall not exceed 150
percent a company's private capital.
Section 356. Issuance and guarantee of trust certificates
Authorizes SBA to issue and guarantee trust certificates
representing ownership of all or part of the debentures
issued by an NMVC company and guaranteed by the
Administration. Each guarantee issued under this section is
limited to the amount of the principal and interest on the
guaranteed debentures that compose the trust or pool of
certificates.
This section grants SBA subrogation and ownership rights
over the trust certificates guaranteed under this section,
but prohibits SBA from collecting a fee for any guarantee of
a trust certificate issued under this section. Finally, this
section allows SBA to contract with an agent to carry out the
pooling and central registration functions for the trust
certificates issued.
Section 357. Fees
Authorizes SBA to charge such fees as it deems appropriate
with respect to any guarantee or grant issued to an NMVC
company.
This authorization is subject to the prohibition contained
in Section 356 that prohibits SBA from collecting a fee for
any
[[Page 24571]]
guarantee of a trust certificate issued under that section.
Section 358. Operational assistance grants
Authorizes SBA to make operational assistance grants to New
Markets Venture Capital Companies established under the
legislation and to certain Specialized Small Business
Investment Companies.
Each NMVC is eligible for one or more grants, on a matching
basis, in an amount equal to the amount the NMVC makes
available for operational assistance. The operational
assistance grant will be made available to the NMVC semi-
annually over a multi-year period not to exceed 10 years. SBA
is also authorized to provide supplemental grants to NMVCs.
This section of the bill also allows Specialized Small
Business Investment Companies (``SSBICs'') access to the
operational assistance grant funds authorized under the
program without entering into a participation agreement with
SBA to act as an NMVC company. The participation of the
SSBICs, however, is limited only to investments they make in
LMI areas after the date of enactment, and they must match
the operational assistance funds to one LMI investment.
This section of the bill explicitly prohibits NMVCs and
SSBICs from using operational assistance grants, both the
federal contribution and the match, to supplement their own
bottom line. This prohibition includes items that are not
aimed at directly benefiting the small enterprises, such as,
but not limited to--the purchase of furniture, office
supplies, physical improvements to the NMVCs' or SSBICs'
places of business, and marketing services. The Committee
included this limitation to ensure that the investments made
through this program will be for the benefit of small
businesses located in LMI areas, which is the intent of the
legislation.
It is the Committee's view that this provision does allow
for operational assistance funds under the legislation to be
used for salaries of those NMVC or SSBIC employees that are
providing direct technical assistance to the small
enterprise. NMVCs and SSBICs that use their own staff to
provide the necessary direct assistance to smaller
enterprises may be reimbursed for the direct cost of staff
out of grant funds, but only to the extent such costs are
allocable to the operational assistance.
This section also requires the NMVC companies to document
in their operation plan the extent to which they intend to
use licensed professionals (e.g., licensed attorneys and
Certified Public Accountants) when providing technical
assistance that requires such expertise. This ensures that
the NMVC companies will provide the best assistance possible
to the small business concerns. It is not meant to be
construed as requirement that licensed professional are sole
persons to provide such assistance, but their use is
encouraged is highly technical situations.
Evidence presented to the Congress by the community
development venture capital advocates indicates that
providing technical assistance to a small business
dramatically increases that business' chance of success. The
Congress wishes to ensure that all small businesses receiving
technical assistance under this program will receive the best
technical assistance available. We believe this will further
increase the businesses' chances of success.
Section 359. Bank participation
Allows any national bank, and any member bank of the
Federal Reserve System to invest in an NMVC company formed
under this legislation so long as the investment would not
exceed 5 percent of the capital and surplus of the bank.
Banks that are not members of the federal Reserve system
are allowed to invest in an NMVC company formed under this
legislation so long as such investment is allowed under
applicable State law, and so long as the investment would not
exceed 5 percent of the capital and surplus of the bank.
Section 360. Federal financing bank
Establishes that Section 318 of the Small Business
Investment Act does not apply to any NMVC Company created
under this legislation.
Section 361. Reporting requirements
Establishes reporting requirements for the NMVC Companies.
Specifically, the NMVC companies are required to provide to
SBA such information as the Administration requires,
including: information related to the measurement criteria
that the NMVC proposed in its program application; and, for
each case in which the NMVC makes an investment or a grant to
a business located outside of an LMI area, a report on the
number and percentage of employees of the business who reside
in an LMI area.
Section 362. Examinations
Requires that each NMVC company shall be subjected to
examinations made at the direction of the Investment Division
of SBA. This section allows for examinations to be conducted
with the assistance of a private sector entity that has both
the necessary qualifications and expertise.
It is the intent of the Committee that the oversight of the
NMVC program be modeled after that developed for the SBIC
program and administered by SBA's Investment Division.
Oversight should include a close working relationship between
SBA analysts and NMVC management teams, detailed reporting
requirements, frequent on-site examinations to evaluate
performance and conformance with the operating plan, and
careful analysis of the firm's economic impact.
Section 363. Injunctions and other orders
Grants SBA the power of injunction over NMVC companies and
the authority to act as a trustee or receiver of a company if
appointed by a court.
This section of the legislation closely tracks the existing
injunction provision (Section 311) of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958. Again, it is the Committee's intent
that oversight of the NMVC program be modeled after that
developed for the SBIC program and administered by SBA's
Investment Division. This oversight should include a close
working relationship between SBA analysts and NMVC management
teams, detailed reporting requirements, frequent on-site
examinations to evaluate performance and conformance with the
operating plan, and careful analysis of the firm's economic
impact.
Section 364. Additional penalties for noncompliance
Grants SBA or the Attorney General the authority to file a
cause of action against an NMVC company for non-compliance.
Should a court find that a company violated or failed to
comply with provisions of this legislation or other
provisions of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, this
section grants SBA the authority to void the participation
agreement between the company and the SBA.
Section 365. Unlawful acts and omissions; breach of fiduciary
duty
Defines what is to be considered as a violation of this
legislation, who is considered to have a fiduciary duty, and
who is ineligible to serve as an officer, director, or
employee of any NMVC company because of unlawful acts.
This section of the legislation closely tracks the unlawful
acts provision (Section 314) of the Small Business Investment
Act of 1958. It is the Committee's intent to grant SBA the
same authority over NMVC companies that it has over Small
Business Investment Companies with respect to unlawful acts
and the breach of fiduciary responsibility.
Section 366. Removal or suspension of directors or officers
Grants SBA the authority to use the procedures set forth in
Section 313 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to
remove or suspend any director or officer of an NMVC company.
Section 367. Regulations
Authorizes the Small Business Administration to issue such
regulations as it deems necessary to carry out the provisions
of the legislation.
Section 368. Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes appropriations for the Program for Fiscal Years
2001 through 2006. This section authorizes such subsidy
budget authority as necessary to guarantee $150,000,000 of
debentures and $30,000,000 to make operational assistance
grants.
The Committee estimates that the Program will only require
a one-time appropriation of $45 million--$15 million for loan
guarantees and $30 million for operational assistance grants.
This $15 million will allow SBA to back $150 million in loans
to small business in low- or moderate-income areas.
Section 368(c). Conforming amendment
Makes a conforming change to the Small Business Investment
Act of 1958 to account for the changes made by this
legislation.
Section 368(d). Calculation of maximum amount of SBIC
leverage
Allows Small Business Investment Companies (``SBICs'') to
obtain additional access to leverage outside the statutory
caps. The exemption of the SBICs, however, is limited only to
investments they make in LMI areas.
This section provides that investments made in LI areas
will not apply against the leverage cap of the individual
SBIC as long as the total amount invested through the program
does not exceed 50% of the SBIC's paid-in capital.
Section 368(e). Bankruptcy exemption for new markets venture
capital companies
Adds NMVC companies to the list of entities that may not be
considered a debtor under a Title 11 bankruptcy proceeding.
Section 368(f). Federal savings associations
Amends the ``Home Owners Loan Act'' to allow federal
savings associations to invest in an NMVC company formed
under this legislation so long as the investment would not
exceed 5 percent of the capital and surplus of the savings
association.
Sec. 903. BusinessLINC
H.R. 5545, also establishes the BusinessLINC program,
designed to promote business growth in inner cities and
economically distressed rural areas by matching large and
small firms into business-to-business partnering and
mentoring relationships. BusinessLinc would accomplish this
by providing seed funding to third party entities such as
local Chambers of Commerce to promote such relationships. In
addition to seed funding, such entities will also receive
funds
[[Page 24572]]
for technical assistance programs to small businesses to
supplement the mentor-protege relationships established as a
result of BusinessLINC.
BusinessLINC helps businesses by providing online
information and a database of companies that are interested
in mentor-protege programs.
Grants may be made to a coalition/combination of private
and public entities only if the coalition/combination
provides an amount, either in kind or in cash, equal to the
grant amount for the purposes above.
Despite the unprecedented economic prosperity we are
experiencing in this country, there are several areas of the
country that have still not achieved parity. These areas are
primarily inner cities, rural areas, and Native American
communities. BusinessLINC will enable business opportunities
for small businesses who would otherwise have no access to
outside larger markets. While these small businesses have
strong potential, they are located in communities where
corporate America would not necessarily look. BusinessLINC
will break that barrier. When the BusinessLINC model has been
applied in the past, small businesses have seen growth as
much as 45 percent. With this assistance, the local community
will be charting its own path to recovery. The ``LINC'' in
BusinessLINC stands for ``Learning, Information, Networking,
and Collaboration.''
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Designates the bill as the ``BusinessLINC Act of 2000.''
Section 2. Authorization
This Section amends the Small Business Act by Adding a new
paragraph (m), ``BusinessLINC grants and cooperative
agreements.''
Paragraph (1) allows the Administrator to make grants or
enter into cooperative agreements with any coalition/
combination of private and/or public entities to (a) promote
business-to-business relationships between large and small
businesses and (b) to provide online information and a
database of companies that are interested in mentor-protege
programs.
It is the opinion of the Conference that private and/or
public entities eligible for grants should be limited to
chambers of commerce and other not-for-profit business
organizations. The Conferees intend that grant money be
provided to large businesses. Further, if a grant is made to
a combination of entities, one entity must take a lead
position.
It is further the opinion of the Conference that promotion
of business-to-business relationships between large and small
businesses referenced in paragraph (a) above should include
the facilitation of such relationships as mentor-protege,
prime/subcontractor, and teaming.
The Conference intends that an element to be considered by
the Administrator when evaluating a grant proposal, shall be
the training of small businesses or ``proteges.'' An
additional evaluation element intended by the Conference
shall be measurable goals to be achieved through the
business-to-business partnerships.
The Conference further intends that the online database
referenced in paragraph (b) above, should make use of the
SBA's current PRO-Net database to the greatest extent
practicable. The Conference is concerned that online privacy
issues should also be addressed by the SBA in the
implementation of the databases. Further, it is the
Committee's opinion that the databases should be vigilantly
maintained by the SBA to ensure that only firms eligible to
be mentors should be included in the mentor database, and
only those firms eligible to serve as intermediaries should
be included in the intermediary database.
Paragraph (2) specifies that the Administrator may make
grants as long as the coalition/combination of public and/or
private entities provides an amount, either in kind or in
cash, equal to the grant amount for the purposes delineated
in paragraph (1) above.
The Conference is well aware that it may be difficult for
some entities to raise their entire match during the
application stage. Those entities that are unable to raise
the required match, but have submitted to the Administrator a
reasonable plan to meet the requirement, may be granted a
conditional approval from the Administrator and be allowed to
draw one dollar of federal matching funds for every dollar of
private funds raised. This conditional approval shall be made
with the expectation that the required funding commitments
will be obtained within two years of the conditional
approval.
The Conference believes that it is important to give
entities the flexibility to obtain the required private
operational assistance funds, however, from a safety and
soundness standpoint, federal funds should not be placed at
greater risk than private capital.
Paragraph (3) specifies the authorization for the program
for fiscal years 2001 through 2003. This amount shall be
$6,600,000 for each of the three fiscal years.
Jim Talent,
Dick Armey,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Christopher Bond,
Conrad Burns,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4942, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2001
Mr. ISTOOK submitted the following conference report and statement on
the bill (H.R. 4942) making appropriations for the government of the
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in
part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-1005)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4942) ``making appropriations for the government of the
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole
or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes'',
having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to
recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an
amendment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said
amendment, insert:
Section 1. (a) The provisions of the following bills of the
106th Congress are hereby enacted into law:
(1) H.R. 5547, as introduced on October 25, 2000.
(2) H.R. 5548, as introduced on October 25, 2000.
(b) In publishing this Act in slip form and in the United
States Statutes at Large pursuant to section 112 of title 1,
United States Code, the Archivist of the United States shall
include after the date of approval at the end appendixes
setting forth the text of the bills referred to in subsection
(a) of this section.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Ernest J. Istook, Jr.,
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Todd Tiahrt,
Robert B. Aderholt,
Jo Ann Emerson,
John E. Sununu,
C.W. Bill Young,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Jon Kyl,
Ted Stevens,
Richard J. Durbin,
Daniel K. Inouye,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4942) making
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia
and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, submit the
following joint statement to the House and the Senate in
explanation of the effect of the actions agreed upon by the
managers and recommended in the accompanying conference
report.
This conference agreement includes more than the District
of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001. The conference
agreement has been expanded to include the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, as well as the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001. Both of these Acts have
been enacted into law by reference in this conference report;
however, a copy of the referenced legislation has been
included in this statement for convenience.
district of columbia appropriations
The conference agreement would enact the provisions of H.R.
5547 as introduced on October 25, 2000. The text of that bill
follows:
A BILL Making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of
Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and
for other purposes, namely:
FEDERAL FUNDS
Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for a
nationwide program to be administered by the Mayor for
District of Columbia resident tuition support, $17,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That such funds
may be used on behalf of eligible District of Columbia
residents to pay an amount based upon the difference between
in-State and out-
[[Page 24573]]
of-State tuition at public institutions of higher education,
usable at both public and private institutions for higher
education: Provided further, That the awarding of such funds
may be prioritized on the basis of a resident's academic
merit and such other factors as may be authorized.
Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children
The paragraph under the heading ``Federal Payment for
Incentives for Adoption of Children'' in Public Law 106-113,
approved November 29, 1999 (113 Stat. 1501), is amended to
read as follows: ``For a Federal payment to the District of
Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of
children in the District of Columbia foster care system,
$5,000,000: Provided, That such funds shall remain available
until September 30, 2002, and shall be used to carry out all
of the provisions of title 38, except for section 3808, of
the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Support Act of 2000, D.C. Bill
13-679, enrolled June 12, 2000.''.
Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia
For a Federal payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia, $1,250,000, of which $250,000 shall be
for payment to a mentoring program and for hotline services;
$250,000 shall be for payment to a youth development program
with a character building curriculum; $250,000 shall be for
payment to a basic values training program; and $500,000, to
remain available until expended, shall be for the design,
construction, and maintenance of a trash rack system to be
installed at the Hickey Run stormwater outfall.
Federal Payment for Commercial Revitalization Program
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia,
$1,500,000, to remain available until expended, for the
Mayor, in consultation with the Council of the District of
Columbia, to provide offsets against local taxes for a
commercial revitalization program, such program to provide
financial inducements, including loans, grants, offsets to
local taxes and other instruments that promote commercial
revitalization in Enterprise Zones and low and moderate
income areas in the District of Columbia: Provided, That in
carrying out such a program, the Mayor shall use Federal
commercial revitalization proposals introduced in Congress as
a guideline: Provided further, That not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Mayor shall
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives on the progress made in carrying out
the commercial revitalization program.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Public Schools
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia Public
Schools, $500,000: Provided, That $250,000 of said amount
shall be used for a program to reduce school violence:
Provided further, That $250,000 of said amount shall be used
for a program to enhance the reading skills of District
public school students.
Federal Payment to the Metropolitan Police Department
For a Federal payment to the Metropolitan Police
Department, $100,000: Provided, That said funds shall be used
to fund a youth safe haven police mini-station for mentoring
high risk youth.
Federal Contribution to Covenant House Washington
For a Federal contribution to Covenant House Washington for
a contribution to the construction in Southeast Washington of
a new community service center for homeless, runaway and at-
risk youth, $500,000.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee
Operations
For salaries and expenses of the District of Columbia
Corrections Trustee, $134,200,000 for the administration and
operation of correctional facilities and for the
administrative operating costs of the Office of the
Corrections Trustee, as authorized by section 11202 of the
National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) of
which $1,000,000 is to fund an initiative to improve case
processing in the District of Columbia criminal justice
system: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, funds appropriated in this Act for the District of
Columbia Corrections Trustee shall be apportioned quarterly
by the Office of Management and Budget and obligated and
expended in the same manner as funds appropriated for
salaries and expenses of other Federal agencies: Provided
further, That in addition to the funds provided under this
heading, the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee may use
any remaining interest earned on the Federal payment made to
the Trustee under the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act, 1998, to carry out the activities funded under this
heading.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts
For salaries and expenses for the District of Columbia
Courts, $105,000,000 to be allocated as follows: for the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $7,409,000; for the
District of Columbia Superior Court, $71,121,000; for the
District of Columbia Court System, $17,890,000; $5,255,000 to
finance a pay adjustment of 8.48 percent for nonjudicial
employees; and $3,325,000, including $825,000 for roofing
repairs to the facility commonly referred to as the Old
Courthouse and located at 451 Indiana Avenue, Northwest, to
remain available until September 30, 2002, for capital
improvements for District of Columbia courthouse facilities:
Provided, That none of the funds in this Act or in any other
Act shall be available for the purchase, installation or
operation of an Integrated Justice Information System until a
detailed plan and design has been submitted by the courts and
approved by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts under
this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of
Management and Budget and obligated and expended in the same
manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses of
other Federal agencies, with payroll and financial services
to be provided on a contractual basis with the General
Services Administration (GSA), said services to include the
preparation of monthly financial reports, copies of which
shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President and to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House
of Representatives.
Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts
For payments authorized under section 11-2604 and section
11-2605, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under
the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act), payments for
counsel appointed in proceedings in the Family Division of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under chapter
23 of title 16, D.C. Code, and payments for counsel
authorized under section 21-2060, D.C. Code (relating to
representation provided under the District of Columbia
Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of
Attorney Act of 1986), $34,387,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the funds provided in this Act under
the heading ``Federal Payment to the District of Columbia
Courts'' (other than the $3,325,000 provided under such
heading for capital improvements for District of Columbia
courthouse facilities) may also be used for payments under
this heading: Provided further, That, in addition to the
funds provided under this heading, the Joint Committee on
Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia shall use
funds provided in this Act under the heading ``Federal
Payment to the District of Columbia Courts'' (other than the
$3,325,000 provided under such heading for capital
improvements for District of Columbia courthouse facilities),
to make payments described under this heading for obligations
incurred during any fiscal year: Provided further, That such
funds shall be administered by the Joint Committee on
Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
this appropriation shall be apportioned quarterly by the
Office of Management and Budget and obligated and expended in
the same manner as funds appropriated for expenses of other
Federal agencies, with payroll and financial services to be
provided on a contractual basis with the General Services
Administration (GSA), said services to include the
preparation of monthly financial reports, copies of which
shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President and to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House
of Representatives: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia Courts shall implement the recommendations in the
General Accounting Office Report GAO/AIMD/OGC-99-226
regarding payments to court-appointed attorneys and shall
report quarterly to the Office of Management and Budget and
to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the
status of these reforms.
Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
for the District of Columbia
(including transfer of funds)
For salaries and expenses, including the transfer and hire
of motor vehicles, of the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, as
authorized by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111
Stat. 712), $112,527,000, of which $67,521,000 shall be for
necessary expenses of Community Supervision and Sex Offender
Registration, to include expenses relating to supervision of
adults subject to protection orders or provision of services
for or related to such persons; $18,778,000 shall be
transferred to the Public Defender Service; and $26,228,000
shall be available to the Pretrial Services Agency: Provided,
That of the amount provided under this heading, $17,854,000
shall be used to improve pretrial defendant and post-
conviction offender supervision, enhance drug testing and
sanctions-based treatment programs and other treatment
services, expand intermediate sanctions and offender re-entry
programs, continue planning and design proposals for a
residential Sanctions Center and improve administrative
infrastructure, including information technology; and
$836,000 of the $17,854,000 referred to in this proviso is
for the Public Defender Service: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts under
this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of
Management and Budget and obligated and expended in the same
manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses of
other Federal agencies: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 446 of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act or any provision of subchapter III of chapter 13 of
title 31, United States Code,
[[Page 24574]]
the use of interest earned on the Federal payment made to the
District of Columbia Offender Supervision, Defender, and
Court Services Agency under the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 1998, by the Agency during fiscal years
1998 and 1999 shall not constitute a violation of such Act or
such subchapter.
Federal Payment for Washington Interfaith Network
For a Federal payment to the Washington Interfaith Network
to reimburse the Network for costs incurred in carrying out
preconstruction activities at the former Fort Dupont
Dwellings and Additions, $1,000,000: Provided, That such
activities may include architectural and engineering studies,
property appraisals, environmental assessments, grading and
excavation, landscaping, paving, and the installation of
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewer lines, and other utilities:
Provided further, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall
make such payment only after the Network has received
matching funds from private sources (including funds provided
through loans) to carry out such activities in an aggregate
amount which is equal to the amount of such payment (as
certified by the Inspector General of the District of
Columbia) and has provided the Secretary of the Treasury with
a request for reimbursement which contains documentation
certified by the Inspector General of the District of
Columbia showing that the Network carried out the activities
and that the costs incurred in carrying out the activities
were equal to or less than the amount of the reimbursement
requested: Provided further, That none of the funds provided
under this heading may be obligated or expended after
December 31, 2001 (without regard to whether the activities
involved were carried out prior to such date).
Federal Payment for Plan to Simplify Employee Compensation Systems
For a Federal payment to the Mayor of the District of
Columbia for a contract for the study and development of a
plan to simplify the compensation systems, schedules, and
work rules applicable to employees of the District
government, $250,000: Provided, That under the terms of the
contract the plan shall include (at a minimum) a review of
the current compensation systems, schedules, and work rules
applicable to such employees; a review of the best practices
regarding the compensation systems, schedules, and work rules
of State and local governments and other appropriate
organizations; a proposal for simplifying the systems,
schedules, and rules applicable to employees of the District
government; and the development of strategies for
implementing such proposal, including an identification of
any statutory, contractual, or other barriers to implementing
the proposal and an estimated time frame for implementing the
proposal: Provided further, That under the terms of the
contract the contractor shall submit the plan to the Mayor
and to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate: Provided further, That the Mayor
shall develop a proposed solicitation for the contract not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act and shall submit a copy of the proposed solicitation to
the Comptroller General for review at least 90 days prior to
the issuance of such solicitation: Provided further, That not
later than 45 days after receiving the proposed solicitation
from the Mayor, the Comptroller General shall review the
solicitation to ensure that it adequately addresses all of
the necessary elements described under this heading and
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate on the results of this review:
Provided further, That for purposes of this contract the term
``District government'' has the meaning given such term in
section 305(5) of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (sec.
47-393(5), D.C. Code), except that such term shall not
include the courts of the District of Columbia and shall
include the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority.
Metrorail Construction
For the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
[WMATA], a contribution of $25,000,000, to remain available
until expended, to design and build a Metrorail station
located at New York and Florida Avenues, Northeast: Provided,
That prior to the release of said funds from the U.S.
Treasury, the District of Columbia shall set aside an
additional $25,000,000 for this project in its Fiscal Year
2001 Budget and Financial Plan and, further, shall establish
a special taxing district for the neighborhood of the
proposed Metrorail station to provide $25,000,000: Provided
further, That the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5309(a)(2) shall
apply to this project.
Federal Payment for Brownfield Remediation
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia,
$3,450,000 for environmental and infrastructure costs at
Poplar Point: Provided, That of said amount, $2,150,000 shall
be available for environmental assessment, site remediation
and wetlands restoration of the 11 acres of real property
under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia: Provided
further, That no more than $1,300,000 shall be used for
infrastructure costs for an entrance to Anacostia Park:
Provided further, That none of said funds shall be used by
the District of Columbia to purchase private property in the
Poplar Point area.
Presidential Inauguration
For a payment to the District of Columbia to reimburse the
District for expenses incurred in connection with
Presidential inauguration activities, $5,961,000, as
authorized by section 737(b) of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 824; D.C.
Code, sec. 1-1132), which shall be apportioned by the Chief
Financial Officer within the various appropriation headings
in this Act.
Children's National Medical Center
For a Federal contribution to the Children's National
Medical Center in the District of Columbia, $500,000 to be
used for the network of satellite pediatric health clincs for
children and families in underserved neighborhoods and
communities in the District of Columbia.
Child Advocacy Center
For a Federal contribution to the Child Advocacy Center for
its Safe Shores program, $500,000.
St. Coletta of Greater Washington Expansion Project
For a Federal contribution to St. Coletta of Greater
Washington, Inc. for costs associated with the establishment
of a day program and comprehensive case management services
for mentally retarded and multiple-handicapped adolescents
and adults in the District of Columbia, including property
acquisition and construction, $1,000,000.
District of Columbia Special Olympics
For a Federal contribution to the District of Columbia
Special Olympics, $250,000.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS
OPERATING EXPENSES
Division of Expenses
The following amounts are appropriated for the District of
Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund
of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically
provided: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, except as provided in section 450A of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act and section 126 of this Act, the total
amount appropriated in this Act for operating expenses for
the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2001 under this
heading shall not exceed the lesser of the sum of the total
revenues of the District of Columbia for such fiscal year or
$5,677,379,000 (of which $172,607,000 shall be from intra-
District funds and $3,250,783,000 shall be from local funds):
Provided further, That the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority shall take
such steps as are necessary to assure that the District of
Columbia meets these requirements, including the apportioning
by the Chief Financial Officer of the appropriations and
funds made available to the District during fiscal year 2001,
except that the Chief Financial Officer may not reprogram for
operating expenses any funds derived from bonds, notes, or
other obligations issued for capital projects.
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority
For the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority (Authority), established by
section 101(a) of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (109
Stat. 97; Public Law 104-8), $3,140,000: Provided, That these
funds be derived from accounts held by the Authority on
behalf of the District of Columbia: Provided further, That
none of the funds contained in this Act may be used to pay
any compensation of the Executive Director or General Counsel
of the Authority at a rate in excess of the maximum rate of
compensation which may be paid to such individual during
fiscal year 2001 under section 102 of such Act, as determined
by the Comptroller General (as described in GAO letter report
B-279095.2): Provided further, That none of the funds
contained in this Act or any other funds available to the
Authority or any other entity of the District of Columbia
government from any source (including any accounts of the
Authority) may be used for any payments (including but not
limited to severance or bonus payments, and payments under
agreements in effect before the enactment of this Act) to any
individual upon or following the individual's separation from
employment with the Authority (other than a payment of the
individual's regular salary for services performed prior to
separation or a payment for unused annual leave accrued by
the individual), except that an individual who is employed by
the Authority during the entire period which begins on the
date of the enactment of this Act and ends on September 30,
2001, may receive a severance payment after such date in an
aggregate amount which does not exceed the product of 200
percent of the individual's average weekly salary during the
final 12-month period (or portion thereof) during which the
individual was employed by the Authority and the number of
full years during which the individual was employed by the
Authority.
Governmental Direction and Support
Governmental direction and support, $195,771,000 (including
$162,172,000 from local funds, $20,424,000 from Federal
funds, and $13,175,000 from other funds): Provided, That not
to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of
the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the
City Administrator shall be available from this appropriation
for official purposes: Provided further, That any program
fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be available
for the payment of expenses of the debt management program of
the District of Columbia: Provided further, That no revenues
[[Page 24575]]
from Federal sources shall be used to support the operations
or activities of the Statehood Commission and Statehood
Compact Commission: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia shall identify the sources of funding for Admission
to Statehood from its own locally-generated revenues:
Provided further, That all employees permanently assigned to
work in the Office of the Mayor shall be paid from funds
allocated to the Office of the Mayor: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, or Mayor's Order
86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the Office of the Chief
Technology Officer's delegated small purchase authority shall
be $500,000: Provided further, That the District of Columbia
government may not require the Office of the Chief Technology
Officer to submit to any other procurement review process, or
to obtain the approval of or be restricted in any manner by
any official or employee of the District of Columbia
government, for purchases that do not exceed $500,000:
Provided further, That $303,000 and no fewer than 5 FTEs
shall be available exclusively to support the Labor-
Management Partnership Council: Provided further, That,
effective September 30, 2000, section 168(a) of the District
of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-113; 113
Stat. 1531) is amended by inserting ``, to remain available
until expended,'' after ``$5,000,000'': Provided further,
That not later than March 1, 2001, the Chief Financial
Officer of the District of Columbia shall submit a study to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate on the merits and potential
savings of privatizing the operation and administration of
St. Elizabeths Hospital.
Economic Development and Regulation
Economic development and regulation, $205,638,000
(including $53,562,000 from local funds, $92,378,000 from
Federal funds, and $59,698,000 from other funds), of which
$15,000,000 collected by the District of Columbia in the form
of BID tax revenue shall be paid to the respective BIDs
pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996
(D.C. Law 11-134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2271 et seq.), and the
Business Improvement Districts Amendment Act of 1997 (D.C.
Law 12-26): Provided, That such funds are available for
acquiring services provided by the General Services
Administration: Provided further, That Business Improvement
Districts shall be exempt from taxes levied by the District
of Columbia.
Public Safety and Justice
Public safety and justice, including purchase or lease of
135 passenger carrying vehicles for replacement only,
including 130 for police-type use and five for fire-type use,
without regard to the general purchase price limitation for
the current fiscal year, and such sums as may be necessary
for making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have
been entered against the District of Columbia government
$762,546,000 (including $591,565,000 from local funds,
$24,950,000 from Federal funds, and $146,031,000 from other
funds): Provided, That the Metropolitan Police Department is
authorized to replace not to exceed 25 passenger-carrying
vehicles and the Department of Fire and Emergency Medical
Services of the District of Columbia is authorized to replace
not to exceed five passenger-carrying vehicles annually
whenever the cost of repair to any damaged vehicle exceeds
three-fourths of the cost of the replacement: Provided
further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be available from
this appropriation for the Chief of Police for the prevention
and detection of crime: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, or Mayor's Order
86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the Metropolitan Police
Department's delegated small purchase authority shall be
$500,000: Provided further, That the District of Columbia
government may not require the Metropolitan Police Department
to submit to any other procurement review process, or to
obtain the approval of or be restricted in any manner by any
official or employee of the District of Columbia government,
for purchases that do not exceed $500,000: Provided further,
That the Mayor shall reimburse the District of Columbia
National Guard for expenses incurred in connection with
services that are performed in emergencies by the National
Guard in a militia status and are requested by the Mayor, in
amounts that shall be jointly determined and certified as due
and payable for these services by the Mayor and the
Commanding General of the District of Columbia National
Guard: Provided further, That such sums as may be necessary
for reimbursement to the District of Columbia National Guard
under the preceding proviso shall be available from this
appropriation, and the availability of the sums shall be
deemed as constituting payment in advance for emergency
services involved: Provided further, That the Metropolitan
Police Department is authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn
officers, with leave for a 50 officer attrition: Provided
further, That no more than 15 members of the Metropolitan
Police Department shall be detailed or assigned to the
Executive Protection Unit, until the Chief of Police submits
a recommendation to the Council for its review: Provided
further, That $100,000 shall be available for inmates
released on medical and geriatric parole: Provided further,
That commencing on December 31, 2000, the Metropolitan Police
Department shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations
of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives, quarterly
reports on the status of crime reduction in each of the 83
police service areas established throughout the District of
Columbia.
Public Education System
Public education system, including the development of
national defense education programs, $998,918,000 (including
$824,867,000 from local funds, $147,643,000 from Federal
funds, and $26,408,000 from other funds), to be allocated as
follows: $769,943,000 (including $629,309,000 from local
funds, $133,490,000 from Federal funds, and $7,144,000 from
other funds), for the public schools of the District of
Columbia; $200,000 from local funds for the District of
Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; $1,679,000 from local
funds for the State Education Office, $17,000,000 from local
funds, previously appropriated in this Act as a Federal
payment, for resident tuition support at public and private
institutions of higher learning for eligible District of
Columbia residents; and $105,000,000 from local funds for
public charter schools: Provided, That there shall be
quarterly disbursement of funds to the District of Columbia
public charter schools, with the first payment to occur
within 15 days of the beginning of each fiscal year: Provided
further, That the District of Columbia public charter schools
will report enrollment on a quarterly basis upon which a
quarterly disbursement will be calculated: Provided further,
That the quarterly payment of October 15, 2000, shall be
fifty (50) percent of each public charter school's annual
entitlement based on its unaudited October 5 enrollment
count: Provided further, That if the entirety of this
allocation has not been provided as payments to any public
charter schools currently in operation through the per pupil
funding formula, the funds shall be available for public
education in accordance with the School Reform Act of 1995
(D.C. Code, sec. 31-2853.43(A)(2)(D); Public Law 104-134, as
amended): Provided further, That $480,000 of this amount
shall be available to the District of Columbia Public Charter
School Board for administrative costs: Provided further, That
$76,433,000 (including $44,691,000 from local funds,
$13,199,000 from Federal funds, and $18,543,000 from other
funds) shall be available for the University of the District
of Columbia: Provided further, That $200,000 is allocated for
the East of the River Campus Assessment Study, $1,000,000 for
the Excel Institute Adult Education Program to be used by the
Institute for construction and to acquire construction
services provided by the General Services Administration on a
reimbursable basis, $500,000 for the Adult Education State
Plan, $650,000 for The Saturday Academy Pre-College Program,
and $481,000 for the Strengthening of Academic Programs; and
$26,459,000 (including $25,208,000 from local funds, $550,000
from Federal funds and $701,000 other funds) for the Public
Library: Provided further, That the $1,020,000 enhancement
shall be allocated such that $500,000 is used for facilities
improvements for 8 of the 26 library branches, $235,000 for
13 FTEs for the continuation of the Homework Helpers Program,
$166,000 for 3 FTEs in the expansion of the Reach Out And
Roar (ROAR) service to license day care homes, and $119,000
for 3 FTEs to expand literacy support into branch libraries:
Provided further, That $2,204,000 (including $1,780,000 from
local funds, $404,000 from Federal funds and $20,000 from
other funds) shall be available for the Commission on the
Arts and Humanities: Provided further, That the public
schools of the District of Columbia are authorized to accept
not to exceed 31 motor vehicles for exclusive use in the
driver education program: Provided further, That not to
exceed $2,500 for the Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 for
the President of the University of the District of Columbia,
and $2,000 for the Public Librarian shall be available from
this appropriation for official purposes: Provided further,
That none of the funds contained in this Act may be made
available to pay the salaries of any District of Columbia
Public School teacher, principal, administrator, official, or
employee who knowingly provides false enrollment or
attendance information under article II, section 5 of the Act
entitled ``An Act to provide for compulsory school
attendance, for the taking of a school census in the District
of Columbia, and for other purposes'', approved February 4,
1925 (D.C. Code, sec. 31-401 et seq.): Provided further, That
this appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the
education of any nonresident of the District of Columbia at
any District of Columbia public elementary and secondary
school during fiscal year 2001 unless the nonresident pays
tuition to the District of Columbia at a rate that covers 100
percent of the costs incurred by the District of Columbia
which are attributable to the education of the nonresident
(as established by the Superintendent of the District of
Columbia Public Schools): Provided further, That this
appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the
education of nonresidents of the District of Columbia at the
University of the District of Columbia, unless the Board of
Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia
adopts, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, a
tuition rate schedule that will establish the tuition rate
for nonresident students at a level no lower than the
nonresident tuition rate charged at comparable public
institutions of higher education in the metropolitan area:
Provided further, That $2,200,000 is allocated to the
Temporary Weighted Student Formula to fund 344 additional
slots for pre-K students: Provided further, That $50,000 is
allocated to fund a conference on learning support for
children ages 3-4 hosted jointly by the District of Columbia
Public Schools and District of Columbia public charter
schools: Provided further, That no local funds in this Act
shall be used to administer a
[[Page 24576]]
system-wide standardized test more than once in FY 2001:
Provided further, That no less than $436,452,000 shall be
expended on local schools through the Weighted Student
Formula: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, rule, or regulation, the evaluation process
and instruments for evaluating District of Columbia Public
School employees shall be a non-negotiable item for
collective bargaining purposes: Provided further, That the
District of Columbia Public Schools shall spend $250,000 to
engage in a Schools Without Violence program based on a model
developed by the University of North Carolina, located in
Greensboro, North Carolina: Provided further, That the
District of Columbia Public Schools shall spend $250,000 to
implement a Failure Free Reading program in the District's
public schools: Provided further, That notwithstanding the
amounts otherwise provided under this heading or any other
provision of law, there shall be appropriated to the District
of Columbia public charter schools on July 1, 2001, an amount
equal to 25 percent of the total amount provided for payments
to public charter schools in the proposed budget of the
District of Columbia for fiscal year 2002 (as submitted to
Congress), and the amount of such payment shall be chargeable
against the final amount provided for such payments under the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2002: Provided
further, That notwithstanding the amounts otherwise provided
under this heading or any other provision of law, there shall
be appropriated to the District of Columbia Public Schools on
July 1, 2001, an amount equal to 10 percent of the total
amount provided for the District of Columbia Public Schools
in the proposed budget of the District of Columbia for fiscal
year 2002 (as submitted to Congress), and the amount of such
payment shall be chargeable against the final amount provided
for the District of Columbia Public Schools under the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2002.
Human Support Services
(including transfer of funds)
Human support services, $1,535,654,000 (including
$637,347,000 from local funds, $881,589,000 from Federal
funds, and $16,718,000 from other funds): Provided, That
$25,836,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until
expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia
employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That
the District of Columbia shall not provide free government
services such as water, sewer, solid waste disposal or
collection, utilities, maintenance, repairs, or similar
services to any legally constituted private nonprofit
organization, as defined in section 411(5) of the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law
100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11371), providing emergency shelter
services in the District, if the District would not be
qualified to receive reimbursement pursuant to such Act (101
Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.):
Provided further, That $1,250,000 shall be paid to the Doe
Fund for the operation of its Ready, Willing, and Able
Program in the District of Columbia as follows: $250,000 to
cover debt owed by the District of Columbia government for
services rendered shall be paid to the Doe Fund within 15
days of the enactment of this Act; and $1,000,000 shall be
paid in equal monthly installments by the 15th day of each
month: Provided further, That $400,000 shall be available for
the administrative costs associated with implementation of
the Drug Treatment Choice Program established pursuant to
section 4 of the Choice in Drug Treatment Act of 2000, signed
by the Mayor on April 20, 2000 (D.C. Act 13-329): Provided
further, That $7,000,000 shall be available for deposit in
the Addiction Recovery Fund established pursuant to section 5
of the Choice in Drug Treatment Act of 2000, signed by the
Mayor on April 20, 2000 (D.C. Act 13-329): Provided further,
That the District of Columbia is authorized to enter into a
long-term lease of Hamilton Field with Gonzaga College High
School and that, in exchange for such a lease, Gonzaga will
introduce and implement a youth baseball program focused on
13 to 18 year old residents, said program to include summer
and fall baseball programs and baseball clinics: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, to
augment the District of Columbia subsidy for the District of
Columbia Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corporation, the
District of Columbia may transfer from other non-Federal
funds appropriated under this Act to the Human Support
Services appropriation under this Act an amount not to exceed
$90,000,000 for the purpose of restructuring the delivery of
health services in the District of Columbia: Provided
further, That such restructuring shall be pursuant to a
restructuring plan approved by the Mayor of the District of
Columbia, the Council of the District of Columbia, the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority, and the Board of Directors of the
Public Benefit Corporation: Provided further, That--
(1) the restructuring plan reduces personnel levels of D.C.
General Hospital and of the Public Benefit Corporation
consistent with the reduction in force set forth in the
August 25, 2000, resolution of the Board of Directors of the
Public Benefit Corporation regarding personnel structure, by
reducing personnel by at least 500 full-time equivalent
employees, without replacement by contract personnel;
(2) no transferred funds are expended until 10 calendar
days after the restructuring plan has received final approval
and a copy evidencing final approval has been submitted by
the Mayor to the Committee on Government Reform of the House
of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate; and
(3) the plan includes a certification that the plan does
not request and does not rely upon any current or future
request for additional appropriation of Federal funds.
Public Works
Public works, including rental of one passenger-carrying
vehicle for use by the Mayor and three passenger-carrying
vehicles for use by the Council of the District of Columbia
and leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles, $278,242,000
(including $265,078,000 from local funds, $3,328,000 from
Federal funds, and $9,836,000 from other funds): Provided,
That this appropriation shall not be available for collecting
ashes or miscellaneous refuse from hotels and places of
business: Provided further, That $100,000 shall be available
for a commercial sector recycling initiative, $250,000 to
initiate a recycling education campaign, $10,000 for
community clean-up kits, $190,000 to restore a 3.5 percent
vacancy rate in Parking Services, $170,000 to plant 500
trees, $118,000 for two water trucks, $150,000 for contract
monitors and parking analysts within Parking Services,
$1,409,000 for a neighborhood cleanup initiative, $1,000,000
for tree maintenance, $600,000 for an anti-graffiti program,
$226,000 for a hazardous waste program, $1,260,000 for
parking control aides, and $400,000 for the Department of
Motor Vehicles to hire additional ticket adjudicators,
conduct additional hearings, and reduce the waiting time for
hearings.
Receivership Programs
For all agencies of the District of Columbia government
under court ordered receivership, $389,528,000 (including
$234,913,000 from local funds, $135,555,000 from Federal
funds, and $19,060,000 from other funds).
Reserve
For replacement of funds expended, if any, during fiscal
year 2000 from the Reserve established by section 202(j) of
the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995, Public Law 104-8,
$150,000,000 from local funds: Provided, That none of these
funds shall be obligated or expended under this heading until
the emergency reserve fund established under this Act has
been fully funded for fiscal year 2001 pursuant to section
450A of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act as set forth
herein.
Emergency Reserve Fund
For the emergency reserve fund established under section
450A(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the amount
provided for fiscal year 2001 under such section, to be
derived from local funds.
Repayment of Loans and Interest
For payment of principal, interest and certain fees
directly resulting from borrowing by the District of Columbia
to fund District of Columbia capital projects as authorized
by sections 462, 475, and 490 of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973, $243,238,000 from
local funds: Provided, That any funds set aside pursuant to
section 148 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
2000 (Public Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1523) that are not used
in the reserve funds established herein shall be used for
Pay-As-You-Go Capital Funds: Provided further, That for
equipment leases, the Mayor may finance $19,232,000 of
equipment cost, plus cost of issuance not to exceed 2 percent
of the par amount being financed on a lease purchase basis
with a maturity not to exceed 5 years: Provided further, That
$2,000,000 is allocated to the Metropolitan Police
Department, $4,300,000 for the Fire and Emergency Medical
Services Department, $1,622,000 for the Public Library,
$2,010,000 for the Department of Parks and Recreation,
$7,500,000 for the Department of Public Works, and $1,800,000
for the Public Benefit Corporation.
Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt
For the purpose of eliminating the $331,589,000 general
fund accumulated deficit as of September 30, 1990,
$39,300,000 from local funds, as authorized by section 461(a)
of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, (105 Stat. 540;
D.C. Code, sec. 47-321(a)(1)).
Payment of Interest on Short-Term Borrowing
For payment of interest on short-term borrowing, $1,140,000
from local funds.
Presidential Inauguration
For reimbursement for necessary expenses incurred in
connection with Presidential inauguration activities as
authorized by section 737(b) of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act, Public Law 93-198, as amended, approved December
24, 1973 (87 Stat. 824; D.C. Code, sec. 1-1803), $5,961,000
from local funds, previously appropriated in this Act as a
Federal payment, which shall be apportioned by the Chief
Financial Officer within the various appropriation headings
in this Act.
Certificates of Participation
For lease payments in accordance with the Certificates of
Participation involving the land site underlying the building
located at One Judiciary Square, $7,950,000 from local funds.
Wilson Building
For expenses associated with the John A. Wilson Building,
$8,409,000 from local funds.
Optical and Dental Insurance Payments
For optical and dental insurance payments, $2,675,000 from
local funds.
[[Page 24577]]
Management Supervisory Service
For management supervisory service, $13,200,000 from local
funds, to be transferred by the Mayor of the District of
Columbia among the various appropriation headings in this Act
for which employees are properly payable.
Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund Transfer Payment
Subject to the issuance of bonds to pay the purchase price
of the District of Columbia's right, title and interest in
and to the Master Settlement Agreement, and consistent with
the Tobacco Settlement Financing and Trust Fund Amendment Act
of 2000, there is transferred the amount available pursuant
thereto, but not to exceed $61,406,000, to the Tobacco
Settlement Trust Fund established pursuant to section 2302 of
the Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund Establishment Act of 1999,
effective October 20, 1999 (D.C. Law 13-38; to be codified at
D.C. Code, sec. 6-135), to be spent pursuant to local law.
Operational Improvements Savings (Including Managed Competition)
The Mayor and the Council, in consultation with the Chief
Financial Officer and the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, shall
make reductions of $10,000,000 for operational improvements
savings in local funds to one or more of the appropriation
headings in this Act.
Management Reform Savings
The Mayor and the Council, in consultation with the Chief
Financial Officer and the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, shall
make reductions of $37,000,000 for management reform savings
in local funds to one or more of the appropriation headings
in this Act.
Cafeteria Plan Savings
For the implementation of a Cafeteria Plan pursuant to
Federal law, a reduction of $5,000,000 in local funds.
ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS
Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington Aqueduct
For operation of the Water and Sewer Authority and the
Washington Aqueduct, $275,705,000 from other funds (including
$230,614,000 for the Water and Sewer Authority and
$45,091,000 for the Washington Aqueduct) of which $41,503,000
shall be apportioned and payable to the District's debt
service fund for repayment of loans and interest incurred for
capital improvement projects.
For construction projects, $140,725,000, as authorized by
the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the laying of
watermains and service sewers in the District of Columbia,
the levying of assessments therefor, and for other purposes''
(33 Stat. 244; Public Law 58-140; D.C. Code, sec. 43-1512 et
seq.): Provided, That the requirements and restrictions that
are applicable to general fund capital improvements projects
and set forth in this Act under the Capital Outlay
appropriation title shall apply to projects approved under
this appropriation title.
Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund
For the Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund,
established by the District of Columbia Appropriation Act for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982 (95 Stat. 1174,
1175; Public Law 97-91), for the purpose of implementing the
Law to Legalize Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and
Raffles for Charitable Purposes in the District of Columbia
(D.C. Law 3-172; D.C. Code, sec. 2-2501 et seq. and sec. 22-
1516 et seq.), $223,200,000: Provided, That the District of
Columbia shall identify the source of funding for this
appropriation title from the District's own locally generated
revenues: Provided further, That no revenues from Federal
sources shall be used to support the operations or activities
of the Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board.
Sports and Entertainment Commission
For the Sports and Entertainment Commission, $10,968,000
from other funds: Provided, That the Mayor shall submit a
budget for the Armory Board for the forthcoming fiscal year
as required by section 442(b) of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act (87 Stat. 824; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code,
sec. 47-301(b)).
District of Columbia Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corporation
(including transfer of funds)
For the District of Columbia Health and Hospitals Public
Benefit Corporation, established by D.C. Law 11-212 (D.C.
Code, sec. 32-262.2), $123,548,000, of which $45,313,000
shall be derived by transfer from the general fund, and
$78,235,000 from other funds: Provided, That no appropriated
amounts and no amounts from or guaranteed by the District of
Columbia government (including the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority)
may be made available to the Corporation (through
reprogramming, transfers, loans, or any other mechanism)
which are not otherwise provided for under this heading until
a restructuring plan for D.C. General Hospital has been
approved by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the
Council of the District of Columbia, the Authority, the Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, and the Chair
of the Board of Directors of the Corporation: Provided
further, That for each payment or group of payments made by
or on behalf of the Corporation, the Chief Financial Officer
of the District of Columbia shall sign an affidavit
certifying that the making of the payment does not constitute
a violation of any provision of subchapter III of chapter 13
of title 31, United States Code, or of any provision of this
Act: Provided further, That more than one payment may be
covered by the same affidavit under the previous proviso, but
a single affidavit may not cover more than one week's worth
of payments: Provided further, That it shall be unlawful for
any person to order any other person to sign any affidavit
required under this heading, or for any person to provide any
signature required under this heading on such an affidavit by
proxy or by machine, computer, or other facsimile device.
District of Columbia Retirement Board
For the District of Columbia Retirement Board, established
by section 121 of the District of Columbia Retirement Reform
Act of 1979 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. Code, sec. 1-711),
$11,414,000 from the earnings of the applicable retirement
funds to pay legal, management, investment, and other fees
and administrative expenses of the District of Columbia
Retirement Board: Provided, That the District of Columbia
Retirement Board shall provide to the Congress and to the
Council of the District of Columbia a quarterly report of the
allocations of charges by fund and of expenditures of all
funds: Provided further, That the District of Columbia
Retirement Board shall provide the Mayor, for transmittal to
the Council of the District of Columbia, an itemized
accounting of the planned use of appropriated funds in time
for each annual budget submission and the actual use of such
funds in time for each annual audited financial report.
Correctional Industries Fund
For the Correctional Industries Fund, established by the
District of Columbia Correctional Industries Establishment
Act (78 Stat. 1000; Public Law 88-622), $1,808,000 from other
funds.
Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund
For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund,
$52,726,000 from other funds.
Capital Outlay
(Including Rescissions)
For construction projects, an increase of $1,077,282,000 of
which $806,787,000 is from local funds, $66,446,000 is from
highway trust funds, and $204,049,000 is from Federal funds,
and a rescission of $55,208,000 from local funds appropriated
under this heading in prior fiscal years, for a net amount of
$1,022,074,000 to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds for use of each capital project implementing
agency shall be managed and controlled in accordance with all
procedures and limitations established under the Financial
Management System: Provided further, That all funds provided
by this appropriation title shall be available only for the
specific projects and purposes intended: Provided further,
That notwithstanding the foregoing, all authorizations for
capital outlay projects, except those projects covered by the
first sentence of section 23(a) of the Federal Aid Highway
Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 827; Public Law 90-495; D.C. Code, sec.
7-134, note), for which funds are provided by this
appropriation title, shall expire on September 30, 2002,
except authorizations for projects as to which funds have
been obligated in whole or in part prior to September 30,
2002: Provided further, That upon expiration of any such
project authorization, the funds provided herein for the
project shall lapse.
General Provisions
Sec. 101. Whenever in this Act, an amount is specified
within an appropriation for particular purposes or objects of
expenditure, such amount, unless otherwise specified, shall
be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for
said purpose or object rather than an amount set apart
exclusively therefor.
Sec. 102. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for
expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of
organizations concerned with the work of the District of
Columbia government, when authorized by the Mayor: Provided,
That in the case of the Council of the District of Columbia,
funds may be expended with the authorization of the chair of
the Council.
Sec. 103. There are appropriated from the applicable funds
of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for
making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have
been entered against the District of Columbia government:
Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be
construed as modifying or affecting the provisions of section
11(c)(3) of title XII of the District of Columbia Income and
Franchise Tax Act of 1947 (70 Stat. 78; Public Law 84-460;
D.C. Code, sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
Sec. 104. (a) Requiring Mayor to Maintain Index.--Effective
with respect to fiscal year 2001 and each succeeding fiscal
year, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall maintain an
index of all employment personal services and consulting
contracts in effect on behalf of the District government, and
shall include in the index specific information on any
severance clause in effect under any such contract.
(b) Public Inspection.--The index maintained under
subsection (a) shall be kept available for public inspection
during regular business hours.
(c) Contracts Exempted.--Subsection (a) shall not apply
with respect to any collective bargaining agreement or any
contract entered into pursuant to such a collective
bargaining agreement.
(d) District Government Defined.--In this section, the term
``District government'' means the government of the District
of Columbia, including--
[[Page 24578]]
(1) any department, agency or instrumentality of the
government of the District of Columbia;
(2) any independent agency of the District of Columbia
established under part F of title IV of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act or any other agency, board, or
commission established by the Mayor or the Council;
(3) the Council of the District of Columbia;
(4) any other agency, public authority, or public benefit
corporation which has the authority to receive monies
directly or indirectly from the District of Columbia (other
than monies received from the sale of goods, the provision of
services, or the loaning of funds to the District of
Columbia); and
(5) the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority.
(e) No payment shall be made pursuant to any such contract
subject to subsection (a), nor any severance payment made
under such contract, if a copy of the contract has not been
filed in the index. Interested parties may file copies of
their contract or severance agreement in the index on their
own behalf.
Sec. 105. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 106. No funds appropriated in this Act for the
District of Columbia government for the operation of
educational institutions, the compensation of personnel, or
for other educational purposes may be used to permit,
encourage, facilitate, or further partisan political
activities. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit the
availability of school buildings for the use of any community
or partisan political group during non-school hours.
Sec. 107. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
be made available to pay the salary of any employee of the
District of Columbia government whose name, title, grade,
salary, past work experience, and salary history are not
available for inspection by the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations, the House Committee on Government Reform,
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Council
of the District of Columbia, or their duly authorized
representative.
Sec. 108. There are appropriated from the applicable funds
of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for
making payments authorized by the District of Columbia
Revenue Recovery Act of 1977 (D.C. Law 2-20; D.C. Code, sec.
47-421 et seq.).
Sec. 109. No part of this appropriation shall be used for
publicity or propaganda purposes or implementation of any
policy including boycott designed to support or defeat
legislation pending before Congress or any State legislature.
Sec. 110. At the start of the fiscal year, the Mayor shall
develop an annual plan, by quarter and by project, for
capital outlay borrowings: Provided, That within a reasonable
time after the close of each quarter, the Mayor shall report
to the Council of the District of Columbia and the Congress
the actual borrowings and spending progress compared with
projections.
Sec. 111. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act to
the agencies funded by this Act, both Federal and District
government agencies, that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2001, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for an
agency through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates
new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or
responsibility center; (3) establishes or changes allocations
specifically denied, limited or increased by Congress in this
Act; (4) increases funds or personnel by any means for any
program, project, or responsibility center for which funds
have been denied or restricted; (5) reestablishes through
reprogramming any program or project previously deferred
through reprogramming; (6) augments existing programs,
projects, or responsibility centers through a reprogramming
of funds in excess of $1,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is
less; or (7) increases by 20 percent or more personnel
assigned to a specific program, project or responsibility
center; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both the
Senate and House of Representatives are notified in writing
30 days in advance of any reprogramming as set forth in this
section.
(b) None of the local funds contained in this Act may be
available for obligation or expenditure for an agency through
a reprogramming of funds which transfers any local funds from
one appropriation to another unless the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives are
notified in writing 30 days in advance of the transfer,
except that in no event may the amount of any funds
transferred exceed two percent of the local funds in the
appropriation.
Sec. 112. Consistent with the provisions of 31 U.S.C.
1301(a), appropriations under this Act shall be applied only
to the objects for which the appropriations were made except
as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the
provisions of the District of Columbia Government
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Law 2-139;
D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), enacted pursuant to section
422(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat.
790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(3)), shall
apply with respect to the compensation of District of
Columbia employees: Provided, That for pay purposes,
employees of the District of Columbia government shall not be
subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 114. No later than 30 days after the end of the first
quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council
of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 2001 revenue
estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year
2001. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002. The officially
revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear
report.
Sec. 115. No sole source contract with the District of
Columbia government or any agency thereof may be renewed or
extended without opening that contract to the competitive
bidding process as set forth in section 303 of the District
of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. Law 6-85;
D.C. Code, sec. 1-1183.3), except that the District of
Columbia government or any agency thereof may renew or extend
sole source contracts for which competition is not feasible
or practical: Provided, That the determination as to whether
to invoke the competitive bidding process has been made in
accordance with duly promulgated rules and procedures and
said determination has been reviewed and approved by the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority.
Sec. 116. For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-
177), the term ``program, project, and activity'' shall be
synonymous with and refer specifically to each account
appropriating Federal funds in this Act, and any
sequestration order shall be applied to each of the accounts
rather than to the aggregate total of those accounts:
Provided, That sequestration orders shall not be applied to
any account that is specifically exempted from sequestration
by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
Sec. 117. In the event a sequestration order is issued
pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037: Public Law 99-177), after the
amounts appropriated to the District of Columbia for the
fiscal year involved have been paid to the District of
Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall pay to
the Secretary of the Treasury, within 15 days after receipt
of a request therefor from the Secretary of the Treasury,
such amounts as are sequestered by the order: Provided, That
the sequestration percentage specified in the order shall be
applied proportionately to each of the Federal appropriation
accounts in this Act that are not specifically exempted from
sequestration by such Act.
Sec. 118. Acceptance and Use of Gifts. (a) Approval by
Mayor.--
(1) In general.--An entity of the District of Columbia
government may accept and use a gift or donation during
fiscal year 2001 if--
(A) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift
or donation (except as provided in paragraph (2)); and
(B) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its
authorized functions or duties.
(2) Exception for council and courts.--The Council of the
District of Columbia and the District of Columbia courts may
accept and use gifts without prior approval by the Mayor.
(b) Records and Public Inspection.--Each entity of the
District of Columbia government shall keep accurate and
detailed records of the acceptance and use of any gift or
donation under subsection (a), and shall make such records
available for audit and public inspection.
(c) Independent Agencies Included.--For the purposes of
this section, the term ``entity of the District of Columbia
government'' includes an independent agency of the District
of Columbia.
(d) Exception for Board of Education.--This section shall
not apply to the District of Columbia Board of Education,
which may, pursuant to the laws and regulations of the
District of Columbia, accept and use gifts to the public
schools without prior approval by the Mayor.
Sec. 119. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for
salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the
offices of United States Senator or United States
Representative under section 4(d) of the District of Columbia
Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979 (D.C.
Law 3-171; D.C. Code, sec. 1-113(d)).
Sec. 120. (a) Modification of Contracting Requirements.--
(1) Contracts subject to notice requirements.--Section
2204(c)(1)(A) of the District of Columbia School Reform Act
(sec. 31- 2853.14(c)(1)(A), D.C. Code) is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) Notice requirement for procurement contracts.--
``(i) In general.--Except in the case of an emergency (as
determined by the eligible chartering authority of a public
charter school), with respect to any procurement contract
proposed to be awarded by the public charter school and
having a value equal to or exceeding $25,000, the school
shall publish a notice of a request for proposals in the
District of Columbia Register and newspapers of general
circulation not less than 7 days prior to the award of the
contract.
``(ii) Exception for certain contracts.--The notice
requirement of clause (i) shall not apply with respect to any
contract for the lease or purchase of real property by a
public charter school, any employment contract for a staff
member of a public charter school, or any management contract
entered into by a public charter school and the management
company designated in its charter or its petition for a
revised charter.''.
[[Page 24579]]
(2) Submission of contracts to eligible chartering
authority.--Section 2204(c)(1)(B) of such Act (sec. 31-
2853.14(c)(1)(B), D.C. Code) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``authority'' and inserting
``eligible chartering authority'';
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``Authority'' and inserting
``eligible chartering authority''; and
(C) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) Effective date of contract.--A contract described in
subparagraph (A) shall become effective on the date that is
10 days after the date the school makes the submission under
clause (i) with respect to the contract, or the effective
date specified in the contract, whichever is later.''.
(b) Clarification of Application of School Reform Act.--
(1) Waiver of duplicate and conflicting provisions.--
Section 2210 of such Act (sec. 31-2853.20, D.C. Code) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Waiver of Application of Duplicate and Conflicting
Provisions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
except as otherwise provided in this title, no provision of
any law regarding the establishment, administration, or
operation of public charter schools in the District of
Columbia shall apply with respect to a public charter school
or an eligible chartering authority to the extent that the
provision duplicates or is inconsistent with any provision of
this title.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995.
(c) Licensing Requirements for Preschool or Prekindergarten
Programs.--
(1) In general.--Section 2204(c) of such Act (sec. 31-
2853.14(c), D.C. Code) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(18) Licensing as child development center.--A public
charter school which offers a preschool or prekindergarten
program shall be subject to the same child care licensing
requirements (if any) which apply to a District of Columbia
public school which offers such a program.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 2202 of such Act
(sec. 31-2853.12, D.C. Code) is amended by striking clause
(17).
(B) Section 2203(h)(2) of such Act (sec. 31-2853.13(h)(2),
D.C. Code) is amended by striking ``(17),''.
(d) Section 2403 of the District of Columbia School Reform
Act of 1995 (sec. 31-2853.43, D.C. Code) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Assignment of Payments.--A public charter school may
assign any payments made to the school under this section to
a financial institution for use as collateral to secure a
loan or for the repayment of a loan.''.
(e) Section 2210 of the District of Columbia School Reform
Act of 1995 (sec. 31-2853.20, D.C. Code), as amended by
subsection (b), is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Participation in GSA Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this
Act or any other provision of law, a public charter school
may acquire goods and services through the General Services
Administration and may participate in programs of the
Administration in the same manner and to the same extent as
any entity of the District of Columbia government.
``(2) Participation by certain organizations.--A public
charter school may delegate to a nonprofit, tax-exempt
organization in the District of Columbia the public charter
school's authority under paragraph (1).''.
Sec. 121. Reporting Requirements for the District of
Columbia Public Schools and the University of the District of
Columbia. (a) The Superintendent of the District of Columbia
Public Schools (DCPS) and the University of the District of
Columbia (UDC) shall each submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate,
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate no later than 15 calendar days after the end of
each quarter a report that sets forth--
(1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year
expenditure projections versus budget broken out on the basis
of control center, responsibility center, and object class,
and for all funds, non-appropriated funds, and capital
financing;
(2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and
the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center,
responsibility center, detailed object, and for all funding
sources;
(3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000
annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the
budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the
basis of control center, responsibility center, and agency
reporting code; and contract identifying codes used by DCPS
and UDC; payments made in the last quarter and year-to-date,
the total amount of the contract and total payments made for
the contract and any modifications, extensions, renewals; and
specific modifications made to each contract in the last
month;
(4) all reprogramming requests and reports that are
required to be, and have been, submitted to the Board of
Education;
(5) all reprogramming requests and reports that have been
made by UDC within the last quarter in compliance with
applicable law; and
(6) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational
structure of DCPS and UDC, displaying for each entity
previous and current control centers and responsibility
centers, the names of the organizational entities that have
been changed, the name of the staff member supervising each
entity affected, and the reasons for the structural change.
(b) The Superintendent of DCPS and UDC shall annually
compile an accurate and verifiable report on the positions
and employees in the public school system and the university,
respectively. The annual report shall--
(1) set forth the number of validated schedule A positions
in the District of Columbia public schools and UDC for fiscal
year 2001, and thereafter on full-time equivalent basis,
including a compilation of all positions by control center,
responsibility center, funding source, position type,
position title, pay plan, grade, and annual salary;
(2) set forth a compilation of all employees in the
District of Columbia public schools and UDC as of the
preceding December 31, verified as to its accuracy in
accordance with the functions that each employee actually
performs, by control center, responsibility center, agency
reporting code, program (including funding source), activity,
location for accounting purposes, job title, grade and
classification, annual salary, and position control number;
and
(3) be submitted to the Congress, the Mayor, the District
of Columbia Council, the Consensus Commission, and the
Authority, not later than February 15 of each year.
(c) No later than November 1, 2000, or within 30 calendar
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever
occurs later, and each succeeding year, the Superintendent of
DCPS and UDC shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the
Consensus Commission, and the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, a revised
appropriated funds operating budget for the public school
system and UDC for such fiscal year: (1) that is in the total
amount of the approved appropriation and that realigns
budgeted data for personal services and other-than-personal
services, respectively, with anticipated actual expenditures;
and (2) that is in the format of the budget that the
Superintendent of DCPS and UDC submit to the Mayor of the
District of Columbia for inclusion in the Mayor's budget
submission to the Council of the District of Columbia
pursuant to section 442 of the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301).
Sec. 122. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be made available to pay the fees of an attorney who
represents a party who prevails in an action or any attorney
who defends any action, including an administrative
proceeding, brought against the District of Columbia Public
Schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) if--
(1) the hourly rate of compensation of the attorney exceeds
250 percent of the hourly rate of compensation under section
11-2604(a), District of Columbia Code; or
(2) the maximum amount of compensation of the attorney
exceeds 250 percent of the maximum amount of compensation
under section 11-2604(b)(1), District of Columbia Code,
except that compensation and reimbursement in excess of such
maximum may be approved for extended or complex
representation in accordance with section 11-2604(c),
District of Columbia Code; and
(3) in no case may the compensation limits in paragraphs
(1) and (2) exceed $2,500.
(b) Notwithstanding the preceding subsection, if the Mayor
and the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public
Schools concur in a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth
a new rate and amount of compensation, then such new rates
shall apply in lieu of the rates set forth in the preceding
subsection to both the attorney who represents the prevailing
party and the attorney who defends the action.
Sec. 123. None of the funds appropriated under this Act
shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of
the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to
term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape
or incest.
Sec. 124. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits
Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-
1401 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or enforce any system
of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether
homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not
limited to registration for the purpose of extending
employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples
on the same basis that such benefits are extended to legally
married couples.
Sec. 125. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority, acting on behalf of the
District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) in formulating the
DCPS budget, the Board of Trustees of the University of the
District of Columbia, the Board of Library Trustees, and the
Board of Governors of the University of the District of
Columbia School of Law shall vote on and approve the
respective annual or revised budgets for such entities before
submission to the Mayor of the District of Columbia for
inclusion in the Mayor's budget submission to the Council of
the District of Columbia in accordance with section 442 of
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198;
D.C. Code, sec. 47-301), or before submitting their
respective budgets directly to the Council.
[[Page 24580]]
Sec. 126. (a) Acceptance and Use of Grants Not Included in
Ceiling.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Mayor, in consultation with the Chief Financial
Officer, during a control year, as defined in section 305(4)
of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-8; 109
Stat. 152), may accept, obligate, and expend Federal,
private, and other grants received by the District government
that are not reflected in the amounts appropriated in this
Act.
(2) Requirement of chief financial officer report and
authority approval.--No such Federal, private, or other grant
may be accepted, obligated, or expended pursuant to paragraph
(1) until--
(A) the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia
submits to the Authority a report setting forth detailed
information regarding such grant; and
(B) the Authority has reviewed and approved the acceptance,
obligation, and expenditure of such grant in accordance with
review and approval procedures consistent with the provisions
of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995.
(3) Prohibition on spending in anticipation of approval or
receipt.--No amount may be obligated or expended from the
general fund or other funds of the District government in
anticipation of the approval or receipt of a grant under
paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection or in anticipation of the
approval or receipt of a Federal, private, or other grant not
subject to such paragraph.
(4) Quarterly reports.--The Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia shall prepare a quarterly report setting
forth detailed information regarding all Federal, private,
and other grants subject to this subsection. Each such report
shall be submitted to the Council of the District of
Columbia, and to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than 15
days after the end of the quarter covered by the report.
(b) Report on Expenditures by Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority.--Not later than 20 calendar
days after the end of each fiscal quarter starting October 1,
2000, the Authority shall submit a report to the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House, and
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate providing
an itemized accounting of all non-appropriated funds
obligated or expended by the Authority for the quarter. The
report shall include information on the date, amount,
purpose, and vendor name, and a description of the services
or goods provided with respect to the expenditures of such
funds.
Sec. 127. If a department or agency of the government of
the District of Columbia is under the administration of a
court-appointed receiver or other court-appointed official
during fiscal year 2001 or any succeeding fiscal year, the
receiver or official shall prepare and submit to the Mayor,
for inclusion in the annual budget of the District of
Columbia for the year, annual estimates of the expenditures
and appropriations necessary for the maintenance and
operation of the department or agency. All such estimates
shall be forwarded by the Mayor to the Council, for its
action pursuant to sections 446 and 603(c) of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act, without revision but subject to the
Mayor's recommendations. Notwithstanding any provision of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat. 774; Public Law
93-198), the Council may comment or make recommendations
concerning such annual estimates but shall have no authority
under such Act to revise such estimates.
Sec. 128. (a) Restrictions on Use of Official Vehicles.--
Except as otherwise provided in this section, none of the
funds made available by this Act or by any other Act may be
used to provide any officer or employee of the District of
Columbia with an official vehicle unless the officer or
employee uses the vehicle only in the performance of the
officer's or employee's official duties. For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``official duties'' does not include
travel between the officer's or employee's residence and
workplace (except: (1) in the case of an officer or employee
of the Metropolitan Police Department who resides in the
District of Columbia or is otherwise designated by the Chief
of the Department; (2) at the discretion of the Fire Chief,
an officer or employee of the District of Columbia Fire and
Emergency Medical Services Department who resides in the
District of Columbia and is on call 24 hours a day; (3) the
Mayor of the District of Columbia; and (4) the Chairman of
the Council of the District of Columbia).
(b) Inventory of Vehicles.--The Chief Financial Officer of
the District of Columbia shall submit, by November 15, 2000,
an inventory, as of September 30, 2000, of all vehicles
owned, leased or operated by the District of Columbia
government. The inventory shall include, but not be limited
to, the department to which the vehicle is assigned; the year
and make of the vehicle; the acquisition date and cost; the
general condition of the vehicle; annual operating and
maintenance costs; current mileage; and whether the vehicle
is allowed to be taken home by a District officer or employee
and if so, the officer or employee's title and resident
location.
Sec. 129. (a) Source of Payment for Employees Detailed
Within Government.--For purposes of determining the amount of
funds expended by any entity within the District of Columbia
government during fiscal year 2001 and each succeeding fiscal
year, any expenditures of the District government
attributable to any officer or employee of the District
government who provides services which are within the
authority and jurisdiction of the entity (including any
portion of the compensation paid to the officer or employee
attributable to the time spent in providing such services)
shall be treated as expenditures made from the entity's
budget, without regard to whether the officer or employee is
assigned to the entity or otherwise treated as an officer or
employee of the entity.
(b) Modification of Reduction in Force Procedures.--Section
2408 of the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive
Merit Personnel Act of 1978, effective March 3, 1979 (D.C.
Law 2-139; D.C. Code, sec. 1-625.7), is amended as follows:
(1) Subsection (a) is amended by striking ``September 30,
2000'' and inserting ``September 30, 2000, and each
subsequent fiscal year''.
(2) Subsection (b) is amended by striking ``Prior to
February 1, 2000'' and inserting ``Prior to February 1 of
each year''.
(3) Subsection (i) is amended by striking ``March 1, 2000''
and inserting ``March 1 of each year''.
(4) Subsection (k) is amended by striking ``September 1,
2000'' and inserting ``September 1 of each year''.
(c) No officer or employee of the District of Columbia
government (including any independent agency of the District
but excluding the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, the
Metropolitan Police Department, and the Office of the Chief
Technology Officer) may enter into an agreement in excess of
$2,500 for the procurement of goods or services on behalf of
any entity of the District government until the officer or
employee has conducted an analysis of how the procurement of
the goods and services involved under the applicable
regulations and procedures of the District government would
differ from the procurement of the goods and services
involved under the Federal supply schedule and other
applicable regulations and procedures of the General Services
Administration, including an analysis of any differences in
the costs to be incurred and the time required to obtain the
goods or services.
Sec. 130. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not
later than 120 days after the date that a District of
Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) student is referred for
evaluation or assessment--
(1) the District of Columbia Board of Education, or its
successor, and DCPS shall assess or evaluate a student who
may have a disability and who may require special education
services; and
(2) if a student is classified as having a disability, as
defined in section 101(a)(1) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (84 Stat. 175; 20 U.S.C.
1401(a)(1)) or in section 7(8) of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (87 Stat. 359; 29 U.S.C. 706(8)), the Board and DCPS
shall place that student in an appropriate program of special
education services.
Sec. 131. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of
the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an
entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds
the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a-10c).
(b) Sense of the Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each agency of the Federal or District of
Columbia government shall provide to each recipient of the
assistance a notice describing the statement made in
paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 132. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used for purposes of the annual independent audit of the
District of Columbia government (including the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority) for fiscal year 2001 unless--
(1) the audit is conducted by the Inspector General of the
District of Columbia pursuant to section 208(a)(4) of the
District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C.
Code, sec. 1-1182.8(a)(4)); and
(2) the audit includes a comparison of audited actual year-
end results with the revenues submitted in the budget
document for such year and the appropriations enacted into
law for such year.
Sec. 133. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used by the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel or any
other officer or entity of the District government to provide
assistance for any petition drive or civil action which
[[Page 24581]]
seeks to require Congress to provide for voting
representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.
Sec. 134. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used to transfer or confine inmates classified above the
medium security level, as defined by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons classification instrument, to the Northeast Ohio
Correctional Center located in Youngstown, Ohio.
Sec. 135. Subsection 3(e) of Public Law 104-21 (D.C. Code
sec. 7-134.2(e)) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Inspector General Audit.--Not later than February 1,
2001, and each February 1 thereafter, the Inspector General
of the District of Columbia shall audit the financial
statements of the District of Columbia Highway Trust Fund for
the preceding fiscal year and shall submit to Congress a
report on the results of such audit. Not later than May 31,
2001, and each May 31 thereafter, the Inspector General shall
examine the statements forecasting the conditions and
operations of the Trust Fund for the next five fiscal years
commencing on the previous October 1 and shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of such examination.''.
Sec. 136. No later than November 1, 2000, or within 30
calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
whichever occurs later, the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress, the Mayor, and the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority a revised appropriated funds operating budget in
the format of the budget that the District of Columbia
government submitted pursuant to section 442 of the District
of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec.
47-301), for all agencies of the District of Columbia
government for such fiscal year that is in the total amount
of the approved appropriation and that realigns all budgeted
data for personal services and other-than-personal-services,
respectively, with anticipated actual expenditures.
Sec. 137. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be used for any program of distributing sterile needles or
syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
(b) Any individual or entity who receives any funds
contained in this Act and who carries out any program
described in subsection (a) shall account for all funds used
for such program separately from any funds contained in this
Act.
Sec. 138. (a) Restrictions on Leases.--Upon the expiration
of the 60-day period that begins on the date of the enactment
of this Act, none of the funds contained in this Act may be
used to make rental payments under a lease for the use of
real property by the District of Columbia government
(including any independent agency of the District) unless the
lease and an abstract of the lease have been filed (by the
District of Columbia or any other party to the lease) with
the central office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic
Development, in an indexed registry available for public
inspection.
(b) Additional Restrictions on Current Leases.--
(1) In general.--Upon the expiration of the 60-day period
that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act, in the
case of a lease described in paragraph (3), none of the funds
contained in this Act may be used to make rental payments
under the lease unless the lease is included in periodic
reports submitted by the Mayor and Council of the District of
Columbia to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate describing for each such lease the
following information:
(A) The location of the property involved, the name of the
owners of record according to the land records of the
District of Columbia, the name of the lessors according to
the lease, the rate of payment under the lease, the period of
time covered by the lease, and the conditions under which the
lease may be terminated.
(B) The extent to which the property is or is not occupied
by the District of Columbia government as of the end of the
reporting period involved.
(C) If the property is not occupied and utilized by the
District government as of the end of the reporting period
involved, a plan for occupying and utilizing the property
(including construction or renovation work) or a status
statement regarding any efforts by the District to terminate
or renegotiate the lease.
(2) Timing of reports.--The reports described in paragraph
(1) shall be submitted for each calendar quarter (beginning
with the quarter ending December 31, 2000) not later than 20
days after the end of the quarter involved, plus an initial
report submitted not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, which shall provide information as of
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Leases described.--A lease described in this paragraph
is a lease in effect as of the date of the enactment of this
Act for the use of real property by the District of Columbia
government (including any independent agency of the District)
which is not being occupied by the District government
(including any independent agency of the District) as of such
date or during the 60-day period which begins on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 139. (a) Management of Existing District Government
Property.--Upon the expiration of the 60-day period that
begins on the date of the enactment of this Act, none of the
funds contained in this Act may be used to enter into a lease
(or to make rental payments under such a lease) for the use
of real property by the District of Columbia government
(including any independent agency of the District) or to
purchase real property for the use of the District of
Columbia government (including any independent agency of the
District) or to manage real property for the use of the
District of Columbia (including any independent agency of the
District) unless the following conditions are met:
(1) The Mayor and Council of the District of Columbia
certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate that existing real property
available to the District (whether leased or owned by the
District government) is not suitable for the purposes
intended.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, there is
made available for sale or lease all real property of the
District of Columbia that the Mayor from time-to-time
determines is surplus to the needs of the District of
Columbia, unless a majority of the members of the Council
override the Mayor's determination during the 30-day period
which begins on the date the determination is published.
(3) The Mayor and Council implement a program for the
periodic survey of all District property to determine if it
is surplus to the needs of the District.
(4) The Mayor and Council within 60 days of the date of the
enactment of this Act have filed with the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate,
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate a report which provides a comprehensive plan for
the management of District of Columbia real property assets,
and are proceeding with the implementation of the plan.
(b) Termination of Provisions.--If the District of Columbia
enacts legislation to reform the practices and procedures
governing the entering into of leases for the use of real
property by the District of Columbia government and the
disposition of surplus real property of the District
government, the provisions of subsection (a) shall cease to
be effective upon the effective date of the legislation.
Sec. 140. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used after the expiration of the 60-day period that begins on
the date of the enactment of this Act to pay the salary of
any chief financial officer of any office of the District of
Columbia government (including the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
and any independent agency of the District) who has not filed
a certification with the Mayor and the Chief Financial
Officer of the District of Columbia that the officer
understands the duties and restrictions applicable to the
officer and the officer's agency as a result of this Act (and
the amendments made by this Act), including any duty to
prepare a report requested either in the Act or in any of the
reports accompanying the Act and the deadline by which each
report must be submitted, and the District's Chief Financial
Officer shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives by the 10th day
after the end of each quarter a summary list showing each
report, the due date and the date submitted to the
Committees.
Sec. 141. The proposed budget of the government of the
District of Columbia for fiscal year 2002 that is submitted
by the District to Congress shall specify potential
adjustments that might become necessary in the event that the
operational improvements savings, including managed
competition, and management reform savings achieved by the
District during the year do not meet the level of management
savings projected by the District under the proposed budget.
Sec. 142. In submitting any document showing the budget for
an office of the District of Columbia government (including
an independent agency of the District) that contains a
category of activities labeled as ``other'',
``miscellaneous'', or a similar general, nondescriptive term,
the document shall include a description of the types of
activities covered in the category and a detailed breakdown
of the amount allocated for each such activity.
Sec. 143. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to
legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the
possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance
under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any
tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.
(b) The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Initiative of 1998, also known as Initiative 59, approved by
the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 1998,
shall not take effect.
Sec. 144. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia is hereby solely authorized
to allocate the District's limitation amount of qualified
zone academy bonds (established pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 1397E)
among qualified zone academies within the District.
Sec. 145. (a) Section 11232 of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (sec. 24-1232, D.C. Code) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) through (i) as
subsections (g) through (j); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection:
``(f) Treatment as Federal Employees.--
``(1) In general.--The Trustee and employees of the Trustee
who are not covered under subsection (e) shall be treated as
employees of the Federal Government solely for purposes of
the following provisions of title 5, United States Code:
[[Page 24582]]
``(A) Chapter 83 (relating to retirement).
``(B) Chapter 84 (relating to the Federal Employees'
Retirement System).
``(C) Chapter 87 (relating to life insurance).
``(D) Chapter 89 (relating to health insurance).
``(2) Effective dates of coverage.--The effective dates of
coverage of the provisions of paragraph (1) are as follows:
``(A) In the case of the Trustee and employees of the
Office of the Trustee and the Office of Adult Probation,
August 5, 1997, or the date of appointment, whichever is
later.
``(B) In the case of employees of the Office of Parole,
October 11, 1998, or the date of appointment, whichever is
later.
``(C) In the case of employees of the Pretrial Services
Agency, January 3, 1999, or the date of appointment,
whichever is later.
``(3) Rate of contributions.--The Trustee shall make
contributions under the provisions referred to in paragraph
(1) at the same rates applicable to agencies of the Federal
Government.
``(4) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management
shall issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out
this subsection.''.
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect
as if included in the enactment of title XI of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997.
Sec. 146. It is the sense of the Congress that the District
of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority should quickly complete the sale of the
Franklin School property, a property which has been vacant
for over 20 years.
Sec. 147. Nothing in this Act may be construed to prevent
the Council or Mayor of the District of Columbia from
addressing the issue of the provision of contraceptive
coverage by health insurance plans, but it is the intent of
Congress that any legislation enacted on such issue should
include a ``conscience clause'' which provides exceptions for
religious beliefs and moral convictions.
Sec. 148. (a) Chapter 23 of title 11, District of Columbia,
is hereby repealed.
(b) The table of chapters for title 11, District of
Columbia, is amended by striking the item relating to chapter
23.
(c) The amendments made by this section shall take effect
on the date on which legislation enacted by the Council of
the District of Columbia to establish the Office of the Chief
Medical Examiner in the executive branch of the government of
the District of Columbia takes effect.
prompt payment of appointed counsel
Sec. 149. (a) Assessment of Interest for Delayed
Payments.--If the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals does not make a
payment described in subsection (b) prior to the expiration
of the 45-day period which begins on the date the Court
receives a completed voucher for a claim for the payment,
interest shall be assessed against the amount of the payment
which would otherwise be made to take into account the period
which begins on the day after the expiration of such 45-day
period and which ends on the day the Court makes the payment.
(b) Payments Described.--A payment described in this
subsection is--
(1) a payment authorized under section 11-2604 and section
11-2605, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under
the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act);
(2) a payment for counsel appointed in proceedings in the
Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia under chapter 23 of title 16, D.C. Code; or
(3) a payment for counsel authorized under section 21-2060,
D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under the
District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective Proceedings,
and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986).
(c) Standards for Submission of Completed Vouchers.--The
chief judges of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall
establish standards and criteria for determining whether
vouchers submitted for claims for payments described in
subsection (b) are complete, and shall publish and make such
standards and criteria available to attorneys who practice
before such Courts.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to require the assessment of interest against any
claim (or portion of any claim) which is denied by the Court
involved.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect
to claims received by the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals after
the expiration of the 90-day period which begins on the date
of the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 150. (a) Effective 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to
distribute any needle or syringe for the hypodermic injection
of any illegal drug in any area of the District of Columbia
which is within 1000 feet of a public or private elementary
or secondary school (including a public charter school). It
is stipulated that based on a survey by the Metropolitan
Police Department of the District of Columbia that sites at
4th Street Northeast and Rhode Island Avenue Northeast,
Southern Avenue Southeast and Central Avenue Southeast, 1st
Street Southeast and M Street Southeast, 21st Street
Northeast and H Street Northeast, Minnesota Avenue Northeast
and Clay Place Northeast, and 15th Street Southeast and Ives
Street Southeast are outside the 1000-foot perimeter. Sites
at North Capitol Street and New York Avenue Northeast,
Division Avenue Northeast and Foote Street Northeast, Georgia
Avenue Northwest and New Hampshire Avenue Northwest, and 15th
Street Northeast and A Street Northeast are found to be
within the 1000-foot perimeter.
(b) The Public Housing Police of the District of Columbia
Housing Authority shall prepare a monthly report on activity
involving illegal drugs at or near any public housing site
where a needle exchange program is conducted, and shall
submit such reports to the Executive Director of the District
of Columbia Housing Authority, who shall submit them to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate. The Executive Director shall ascertain any
concerns of the residents of any public housing site about
any needle exchange program conducted on or near the site,
and this information shall be included in these reports. The
District of Columbia Government shall take appropriate action
to require relocation of any such program if so recommended
by the police or by a significant number of residents of such
site.
federal contribution for enforcement of law banning possession of
tobacco products by minors
Sec. 151. (a) Contribution.--There is hereby appropriated a
Federal contribution of $100,000 to the Metropolitan Police
Department of the District of Columbia, effective upon the
enactment by the District of Columbia of a law which reads as
follows:
``SECTION 1. BAN ON POSSESSION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS BY MINORS.
``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any individual
under 18 years of age to possess any cigarette or other
tobacco product in the District of Columbia.
``(b) Exceptions.--
``(1) Possession in course of employment.--Subsection (a)
shall not apply with respect to an individual making a
delivery of cigarettes or tobacco products in pursuance of
employment.
``(2) Participation in law enforcement operation.--
Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to an individual
possessing products in the course of a valid, supervised law
enforcement operation.
``(c) Penalties.--Any individual who violates subsection
(a) shall be subject to the following penalties:
``(1) For any violation, the individual may be required to
perform community service or attend a tobacco cessation
program.
``(2) Upon the first violation, the individual shall be
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50.
``(3) Upon the second and each subsequent violation, the
individual shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100.
``(4) Upon the third and each subsequent violation, the
individual may have his or her driving privileges in the
District of Columbia suspended for a period of 90 consecutive
days.''.
(b) Use of Contribution.--The Metropolitan Police
Department shall use the contribution made under subsection
(a) to enforce the law referred to in such subsection.
Sec. 152. Nothing in this Act bars the District of Columbia
Corporation Counsel from reviewing or commenting on briefs in
private lawsuits, or from consulting with officials of the
District government regarding such lawsuits.
Sec. 153. (a) Nothing in the Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreements Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) may be
construed to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency from negotiating and entering into
cooperative agreements and grants authorized by law which
affect real property of the Federal Government in the
District of Columbia if the principal purpose of the
cooperative agreement or grant is to provide comparable
benefits for Federal and non-Federal properties in the
District of Columbia.
(b) Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to fiscal year
2001 and each succeeding fiscal year.
Sec. 154. (a) In General.--The District of Columbia Home
Rule Act, as amended by section 159(a) of this Act, is
further amended by inserting after section 450A the following
new section:
``comprehensive financial management policy
``Sec. 450B. (a) Comprehensive Financial Management
Policy.--The District of Columbia shall conduct its financial
management in accordance with a comprehensive financial
management policy.
``(b) Contents of Policy.--The comprehensive financial
management policy shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
``(1) A cash management policy.
``(2) A debt management policy.
``(3) A financial asset management policy.
``(4) An emergency reserve management policy in accordance
with section 450A(a).
``(5) A contingency reserve management policy in accordance
with section 450A(b).
``(6) A policy for determining real property tax exemptions
for the District of Columbia.
``(c) Annual Review.--The comprehensive financial
management policy shall be reviewed at the end of each fiscal
year by the Chief Financial Officer who shall--
``(1) not later than July 1 of each year, submit any
proposed changes in the policy to the Mayor and (in the case
of a fiscal year which is a control year, as defined in
section 305(4) of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995) the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority (Authority) for review;
``(2) not later than August 1 of each year, after
consideration of any comments received under paragraph (1),
submit the changes to the Council of the District of Columbia
(Council) for approval; and
``(3) not later than September 1 of each year, notify the
Committees on Appropriations of the
[[Page 24583]]
Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate of any
changes enacted by the Council.
``(d) Procedure for Development of First Comprehensive
Financial Management Policy.--
``(1) Chief Financial Officer.--Not later than April 1,
2001, the Chief Financial Officer shall submit to the Mayor
an initial proposed comprehensive financial management policy
for the District of Columbia pursuant to this section.
``(2) Council.--Following review and comment by the Mayor,
not later than May 1, 2001, the Chief Financial Officer shall
submit the proposed financial management policy to the
Council for its prompt review and adoption.
``(3) Authority.--Upon adoption of the financial management
policy under paragraph (2), the Council shall immediately
submit the policy to the Authority for a review of not to
exceed 30 days.
``(4) Congress.--Following review of the financial
management policy by the Authority under paragraph (3), the
Authority shall submit the policy to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives,
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate for review, and the policy shall take effect 30
days after the date the policy is submitted under this
paragraph.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 450A the following new
item:
``Sec. 450B. Comprehensive financial management policy.''.
(c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on October 1, 2000.
appointment and duties of chief financial officer
Sec. 155. (a) Appointment and Dismissal.--Section 424(b) of
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 47-317.2, D.C.
Code) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by adding at the end the
following: ``Upon confirmation by the Council, the name of
the Chief Financial Officer shall be submitted to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House
of Representatives for a 30-day period of review and comment
before the appointment takes effect.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting the following: ``upon dismissal by the Mayor
and approval of that dismissal by a \2/3\ vote of the
Council. Upon approval of the dismissal by the Council,
notice of the dismissal shall be submitted to the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives,
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives for a 30-day period of review and comment
before the dismissal takes effect.''.
(b) Functions.--
(1) In general.--Section 424(c) of such Act (sec. 47-317.3,
D.C. Code) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``During a Control Year'';
(B) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``During a control year, the Chief Financial Officer'' and
inserting ``The Chief Financial Officer'';
(C) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Preparing'' and
inserting ``During a control year, preparing'';
(D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Assuring'' and
inserting ``During a control year, assuring'';
(E) in paragraph (5), by striking ``With the approval'' and
all that follows through ``the Council--'' and inserting
``Preparing and submitting to the Mayor and the Council, with
the approval of the Authority during a control year--'';
(F) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or the Authority'' and
inserting ``(or by the Authority during a control year)'';
and
(G) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(18) Exercising responsibility for the administration and
supervision of the District of Columbia Treasurer (except
that the Chief Financial Officer may delegate any portion of
such responsibility as the Chief Financial Officer considers
appropriate and consistent with efficiency).
``(19) Administering all borrowing programs of the District
government for the issuance of long-term and short-term
indebtedness.
``(20) Administering the cash management program of the
District government, including the investment of surplus
funds in governmental and non-governmental interest-bearing
securities and accounts.
``(21) Administering the centralized District government
payroll and retirement systems.
``(22) Governing the accounting policies and systems
applicable to the District government.
``(23) Preparing appropriate annual, quarterly, and monthly
financial reports of the accounting and financial operations
of the District government.
``(24) Not later than 120 days after the end of each fiscal
year, preparing the complete financial statement and report
on the activities of the District government for such fiscal
year, for the use of the Mayor under section 448(a)(4).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 424 of such Act (sec.
47-317.1 et seq., D.C. Code) is amended--
(A) by striking subsection (d);
(B) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``or subsection
(d)''; and
(C) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively.
Sec. 156. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of the
District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel
Act of 1978 (D.C. Law 2-139; D.C. Code 1-601.1 et seq.), or
any other District of Columbia law, statute, regulation, the
provisions of the District of Columbia Personnel Manual, or
the provisions of any collective bargaining agreement,
employees of the District of Columbia government will only
receive compensation for overtime work in excess of 40 hours
per week (or other applicable tour of duty) of work actually
performed, in accordance with the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall be effective
December 27, 1996. The Resolution and Order of the District
of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority, dated December 27, 1996, is hereby
ratified and approved and shall be given full force and
effect.
Sec. 157. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 503 of
Public Law 100-71 and as provided in subsection (b), the
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the
District of Columbia (in this section referred to as the
``agency'') may implement and administer the Drug Free
Workplace Program of the agency, dated July 28, 2000, for
employment applicants of the agency.
(b) Effective Period.--The waiver provided by subsection
(a) shall--
(1) take effect on enactment; and
(2) terminate on the date the Department of Health and
Human Services approves the drug program of the agency
pursuant to section 503 of Public Law 100-71 or 12 months
after the date referred to in paragraph (1), whichever is
later.
Sec. 158. Commencing October 1, 2000, the Mayor of the
District of Columbia shall submit to the Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, and the House Government Reform Committee
quarterly reports addressing the following issues: (1) crime,
including the homicide rate, implementation of community
policing, the number of police officers on local beats, and
the closing down of open-air drug markets; (2) access to drug
abuse treatment, including the number of treatment slots, the
number of people served, the number of people on waiting
lists, and the effectiveness of treatment programs; (3)
management of parolees and pre-trial violent offenders,
including the number of halfway house escapes and steps taken
to improve monitoring and supervision of halfway house
residents to reduce the number of escapes to be provided in
consultation with the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency; (4) education, including access to special education
services and student achievement to be provided in
consultation with the District of Columbia Public Schools;
(5) improvement in basic District services, including rat
control and abatement; (6) application for and management of
Federal grants, including the number and type of grants for
which the District was eligible but failed to apply and the
number and type of grants awarded to the District but which
the District failed to spend the amounts received; and (7)
indicators of child well-being.
reserve funds
Sec. 159. (a) Establishment of Reserve Funds.--
(1) In general.--The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is
amended by inserting after section 450 the following new
section:
``reserve funds
``Sec. 450A. (a) Emergency Reserve Fund.--
``(1) In general.--There is established an emergency cash
reserve fund (in this subsection referred to as the
`emergency reserve fund') as an interest-bearing account
(separate from other accounts in the General Fund) into which
the Mayor shall deposit in cash not later than February 15 of
each fiscal year (or not later than October 1, 2000, in the
case of fiscal year 2001) such amount as may be required to
maintain a balance in the fund of at least 4 percent of the
total budget appropriated for operating expenditures for such
fiscal year which is derived from local funds (or, in the
case of fiscal years prior to fiscal year 2004, such amount
as may be required to maintain a balance in the fund of at
least the minimum emergency reserve balance for such fiscal
year, as determined under paragraph (2)).
``(2) Determination of minimum emergency reserve balance.--
``(A) In general.--The `minimum emergency reserve balance'
with respect to a fiscal year is the amount equal to the
applicable percentage of the total budget appropriated for
operating expenditures for such fiscal year which is derived
from local funds.
``(B) Applicable percentage defined.--In subparagraph (A),
the `applicable percentage' with respect to a fiscal year
means the following:
``(i) For fiscal year 2001, 1 percent.
``(ii) For fiscal year 2002, 2 percent.
``(iii) For fiscal year 2003, 3 percent.
``(3) Interest.--Interest earned on the emergency reserve
fund shall remain in the account and shall only be withdrawn
in accordance with paragraph (4).
``(4) Criteria for use of amounts in emergency reserve
fund.--The Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the
Mayor, shall develop a policy to govern the emergency reserve
[[Page 24584]]
fund which shall include (but which may not be limited to)
the following requirements:
``(A) The emergency reserve fund may be used to provide for
unanticipated and nonrecurring extraordinary needs of an
emergency nature, including a natural disaster or calamity as
defined by section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 100-707) or
unexpected obligations by Federal law.
``(B) The emergency reserve fund may also be used in the
event of a State of Emergency as declared by the Mayor
pursuant to section 5 of the District of Columbia Public
Emergency Act of 1980 (sec. 6-1504, D.C. Code).
``(C) The emergency reserve fund may not be used to fund--
``(i) any department, agency, or office of the Government
of the District of Columbia which is administered by a
receiver or other official appointed by a court;
``(ii) shortfalls in any projected reductions which are
included in the budget proposed by the District of Columbia
for the fiscal year; or
``(iii) settlements and judgments made by or against the
Government of the District of Columbia.
``(5) Allocation of emergency cash reserve funds.--Funds
may be allocated from the emergency reserve fund only after--
``(A) an analysis has been prepared by the Chief Financial
Officer of the availability of other sources of funding to
carry out the purposes of the allocation and the impact of
such allocation on the balance and integrity of the emergency
reserve fund; and
``(B) with respect to fiscal years beginning with fiscal
year 2005, the contingency reserve fund established by
subsection (b) has been projected by the Chief Financial
Officer to be exhausted at the time of the allocation.
``(6) Notice.--The Mayor, the Council, and (in the case of
a fiscal year which is a control year, as defined in section
305(4) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Act of 1995) the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and House of Representatives in writing not more
than 30 days after the expenditure of funds from the
emergency reserve fund.
``(7) Replenishment.--The District of Columbia shall
appropriate sufficient funds each fiscal year in the budget
process to replenish any amounts allocated from the emergency
reserve fund during the preceding fiscal year by the
following fiscal year. Once the emergency reserve equals 4
percent of total budget appropriated from local funds for
operating expenditures for the fiscal year, the District of
Columbia shall appropriate sufficient funds each fiscal year
in the budget process to replenish any amounts allocated from
the emergency reserve fund during the preceding year to
maintain a balance of at least 4 percent of total funds
appropriated from local funds for operating expenditures by
the following fiscal year.
``(b) Contingency Reserve Fund.--
``(1) In general.--There is established a contingency cash
reserve fund (in this subsection referred to as the
`contingency reserve fund') as an interest-bearing account
(separate from other accounts in the General Fund) into which
the Mayor shall deposit in cash not later than October 1 of
each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2005) such
amount as may be required to maintain a balance in the fund
of at least 3 percent of the total budget appropriated for
operating expenditures for such fiscal year which is derived
from local funds (or, in the case of fiscal years prior to
fiscal year 2007, such amount as may be required to maintain
a balance in the fund of at least the minimum contingency
reserve balance for such fiscal year, as determined under
paragraph (2)).
``(2) Determination of minimum contingency reserve
balance.--
``(A) In general.--The `minimum contingency reserve
balance' with respect to a fiscal year is the amount equal to
the applicable percentage of the total budget appropriated
from local funds for operating expenditures for such fiscal
year which is derived from local funds.
``(B) Applicable percentage defined.--In subparagraph (A),
the `applicable percentage' with respect to a fiscal year
means the following:
``(i) For fiscal year 2005, 1 percent.
``(ii) For fiscal year 2006, 2 percent.
``(3) Interest.--Interest earned on the contingency reserve
fund shall remain in the account and may only be withdrawn in
accordance with paragraph (4).
``(4) Criteria for use of amounts in contingency reserve
fund.--The Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the
Mayor, shall develop a policy governing the use of the
contingency reserve fund which shall include (but which may
not be limited to) the following requirements:
``(A) The contingency reserve fund may only be used to
provide for nonrecurring or unforeseen needs that arise
during the fiscal year, including expenses associated with
unforeseen weather or other natural disasters, unexpected
obligations created by Federal law or new public safety or
health needs or requirements that have been identified after
the budget process has occurred, or opportunities to achieve
cost savings.
``(B) The contingency reserve fund may be used, if needed,
to cover revenue shortfalls experienced by the District
government for 3 consecutive months (based on a 2 month
rolling average) that are 5 percent or more below the budget
forecast.
``(C) The contingency reserve fund may not be used to fund
any shortfalls in any projected reductions which are included
in the budget proposed by the District of Columbia for the
fiscal year.
``(5) Allocation of contingency cash reserve.--Funds may be
allocated from the contingency reserve fund only after an
analysis has been prepared by the Chief Financial Officer of
the availability of other sources of funding to carry out the
purposes of the allocation and the impact of such allocation
on the balance and integrity of the contingency reserve fund.
``(6) Replenishment.--The District of Columbia shall
appropriate sufficient funds each fiscal year in the budget
process to replenish any amounts allocated from the
contingency reserve fund during the preceding fiscal year by
the following fiscal year. Once the contingency reserve
equals 3 percent of total funds appropriated from local funds
for operating expenditures, the District of Columbia shall
appropriate sufficient funds each fiscal year in the budget
process to replenish any amounts allocated from the
contingency reserve fund during the preceding year to
maintain a balance of at least 3 percent of total funds
appropriated from local funds for operating expenditures by
the following fiscal year.
``(c) Quarterly Reports.--The Chief Financial Officer shall
submit a quarterly report to the Mayor, the Council, the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority (in the case of a fiscal year which is a
control year, as defined in section 305(4) of the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Act of 1995), and the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and House of Representatives that includes a monthly
statement on the balance and activities of the contingency
and emergency reserve funds.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 450 the following new
item:
``Sec. 450A. Reserve funds.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Current reserve fund.--Section 202(j) of the District
of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Act of 1995 (sec. 47-392.2(j), D.C. Code) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Beginning with fiscal
year 2000, the plan or budget submitted pursuant to this
Act'' and inserting ``For each of the fiscal years 2000
through 2004, the budget of the District government for the
fiscal year''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Replenishment.--Any amount of the reserve funds which
is expended in one fiscal year shall be replenished in the
reserve funds from the following fiscal year appropriations
to maintain the $150,000,000 balance.''.
(2) Positive fund balance.--Section 202(k) of such Act
(sec. 47-392.2(k), D.C. Code) is repealed.
(c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on October 1, 2000.
treatment of revenue bonds secured by tobacco settlement payments
Sec. 160. (a) Permitting Council to Delegate Authority to
Issue Bonds.--
(1) In general.--Section 490 of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act (sec. 47-334, D.C. Code) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (i) through (m) as
subsections (j) through (n); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new
subsection:
``(i)(1) The Council may delegate to the District of
Columbia Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation (hereafter
in this subsection referred to as the ``Corporation'')
established pursuant to the Tobacco Settlement Financing Act
of 2000 the authority of the Council under subsection (a) to
issue revenue bonds, notes, and other obligations which are
used to borrow money to finance or assist in the financing or
refinancing of capital projects and other undertakings of the
District of Columbia and which are payable solely from and
secured by payments under the Master Tobacco Settlement
Agreement. The Corporation may exercise authority delegated
to it by the Council as described in the first sentence of
this paragraph (whether such delegation is made before or
after the date of the enactment of this subsection) only in
accordance with this subsection and the provisions of the
Tobacco Settlement Financing Act of 2000.
``(2) Revenue bonds, notes, and other obligations issued by
the Corporation under a delegation of authority described in
paragraph (1) shall be issued by resolution of the
Corporation, and any such resolution shall not be considered
to be an act of the Council.
``(3) The fourth sentence of section 446 shall not apply
to--
``(A) any amount (including the amount of any accrued
interest or premium) obligated or expended from the proceeds
of the sale of any revenue bond, note, or other obligation
issued pursuant to this subsection;
``(B) any amount obligated or expended for the payment of
the principal of, interest on, or any premium for any revenue
bond, note, or other obligation issued pursuant to this
subsection;
``(C) any amount obligated or expended to secure any
revenue bond, note, or other obligation issued pursuant to
this subsection; or
``(D) any amount obligated or expended for repair,
maintenance, and capital improvements
[[Page 24585]]
to facilities financed pursuant to this subsection.
``(4) In this subsection, the term `Master Tobacco
Settlement Agreement' means the settlement agreement (and
related documents), as may be amended from time to time,
entered into on November 23, 1998, by the District of
Columbia and leading United States tobacco product
manufacturers.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The fourth sentence of section
446 of such Act (sec. 47-304, D.C. Code) is amended by
striking ``and (h)(3)'' and inserting ``(h)(3), and (i)(3)''.
(b) Waiver of Congressional Review Period for Tobacco
Settlement Financing Act.--Notwithstanding section 602(c)(1)
of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-233(c)(1),
D.C. Code), the Tobacco Settlement Financing Act of 2000
(title XXXVII of D.C. Act 13-375, as amended by section 8(e)
of D.C. Act 13-387) shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of such Act or the date of the enactment of this
Act, whichever is later.
Sec. 161. Section 603(e) of the Student Loan Marketing
Association Reorganization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208;
110 Stat. 3009-293), as amended by section 153 of the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, is amended--
(1) by amending the second sentence of paragraph (2)(B) to
read as follows: ``Of such amounts and proceeds, $5,000,000
shall be set aside for a credit enhancement fund for public
charter schools in the District of Columbia, to be
administered and disbursed in accordance with paragraph
(3).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Credit enhancement fund for public charter schools.--
``(A) Distribution of amounts.--Of the amounts in the
credit enhancement fund established under paragraph (2)(B)--
``(i) 50 percent shall be used to make grants under
subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) 50 percent shall be used to make grants under
subparagraph (C).
``(B) Grants to eligible nonprofit corporations.--
``(i) In general.--Using the amounts described in
subparagraph (A)(i), not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
2001, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall make and
disburse grants to eligible nonprofit corporations to carry
out the purposes described in subparagraph (E).
``(ii) Administration.--The Mayor shall administer the
program of grants under this subparagraph, except that if the
committee described in subparagraph (C)(iii) is in operation
and is fully functional prior to the date the Mayor makes the
grants, the Mayor may delegate the administration of the
program to the committee.
``(C) Other grants.--
``(i) In general.--Using the amounts described in
subparagraph (A)(ii), the Mayor of the District of Columbia
shall make grants to entities to carry out the purposes
described in subparagraph (E).
``(ii) Participation of schools.--A public charter school
in the District of Columbia may receive a grant under this
subparagraph to carry out the purposes described in
subparagraph (E) in the same manner as other entities
receiving grants to carry out such activities.
``(iii) Administration through committee.--The Mayor shall
carry out this subparagraph through the committee appointed
by the Mayor under the second sentence of paragraph (2)(B)
(as in effect prior to the enactment of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001). The committee may enter
into an agreement with a third party to carry out its
responsibilities under this subparagraph.
``(iv) Cap on administrative costs.--Not more than 10% of
the funds available for grants under this subparagraph may be
used to cover the administrative costs of making grants under
this subparagraph.
``(D) Special rule regarding eligibility of nonprofit
corporations.--In order to be eligible to receive a grant
under this paragraph, a nonprofit corporation must provide
appropriate certification to the Mayor or to the committee
described in subparagraph (C)(iii) (as the case may be) that
it is duly authorized by two or more public charter schools
in the District of Columbia to act on their behalf in
obtaining financing (or in assisting them in obtaining
financing) to cover the costs of activities described in
subparagraph (E)(i).
``(E) Purposes of grants.--
``(i) In general.--The recipient of a grant under this
paragraph shall use the funds provided under the grant to
carry out activities to assist public charter schools in the
District of Columbia in--
``(I) obtaining financing to acquire interests in real
property (including by purchase, lease, or donation),
including financing to cover planning, development, and other
incidental costs;
``(II) obtaining financing for construction of facilities
or the renovation, repair, or alteration of existing property
or facilities (including the purchase or replacement of
fixtures and equipment), including financing to cover
planning, development, and other incidental costs; and
``(III) enhancing the availability of loans (including
mortgages) and bonds.
``(ii) No direct funding for schools.--Funds provided under
a grant under this subparagraph may not be used by a
recipient to make direct loans or grants to public charter
schools.''.
Sec. 162. (a) Exclusive Authority of Mayor.--
Notwithstanding section 451 of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act or any other provision of District of Columbia or
Federal law to the contrary, the Mayor of the District of
Columbia shall have the exclusive authority to approve and
execute leases of the Washington Marina and the Washington
municipal fish wharf with the existing lessees thereof for an
initial term of 30 years, together with such other terms and
conditions (including renewal options) as the Mayor deems
appropriate.
(b) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Washington Marina'' means the portions of
Federal property in the Southwest quadrant of the District of
Columbia within Lot 848 in Square 473, the unassessed Federal
real property adjacent to Lot 848 in Square 473, and riparian
rights appurtenant thereto; and
(2) the term ``Washington municipal fish wharf'' means the
water frontage on the Potomac River lying south of Water
Street between 11th and 12th Streets, including the buildings
and wharves thereon.
Sec. 163. Section 11201(g)(4)(A) of the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997
(D.C. Code, sec. 24-1201(g)(4)(A)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating clauses (vi) through (ix) as clauses
(vii) through (x), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after clause (v) the following:
``(vi) immediately upon completing the remediation required
under clause (ii) (but in no event later than June 1, 2003),
transfer any property located south of Silverbrooke Road
which is identified for use for educational purposes in the
Fairfax County reuse plan to the County, without
consideration, subject to the condition that the County use
the property only for educational purposes;''.
Sec. 164. (a) Section 208(a) of the District of Columbia
Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (sec. 1-1182.8(a), D.C.
Code) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``the same auditor)''
and inserting ``the same auditor, except as may be provided
in paragraph (5)); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (4)(A), an auditor who is a
subcontractor to the auditor who audited the financial
statement and report described in paragraph (3)(H) for a
fiscal year may audit the financial statement and report for
any succeeding fiscal year (as either the prime auditor or as
a subcontractor to another auditor) if--
``(A) such subcontractor is not a signatory to the
statement and report for the previous fiscal year;
``(B) the prime auditor reviewed and approved the work of
the subcontractor on the statement and report for the
previous fiscal year; and
``(C) the subcontractor is not an employee of the prime
contractor or of an entity owned, managed, or controlled by
the prime contractor.''.
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with
respect to financial statements and reports for activities of
the District of Columbia Government for fiscal years
beginning with fiscal year 2001.
Sec. 165. Section 11201(g) of the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997
(D.C. Code, sec. 24-1201(g)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(6) Meadowood farm land exchange.--
``(A) In general.--If, not later than January 15, 2001,
Fairfax County, Virginia, agrees to convey fee simple title
to the property on Mason Neck in excess of 800 acres depicted
on the map dated June 2000, on file in the Office of the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States
(hereafter in this paragraph referred to as `Meadowood Farm')
to the Secretary of the Interior, then the Administrator of
General Services shall agree to convey to Fairfax County,
Virginia, fee simple title to the property located at the
Lorton Correctional Complex north of Silverbrook Road, and
consisting of more than 200 acres identified in the Fairfax
County Reuse Plan, dated July 26, 1999, as land available for
residential development in Land Units 1 and 2 (hereafter in
this paragraph referred to as the `Laurel Hill Residential
Land'), the actual exchange to occur no later than December
31, 2001.
``(B) Terms and conditions.--(i) When Fairfax County
transfers fee simple title to Meadowood Farm to the Secretary
of the Interior, the Administrator of General Services shall
simultaneously transfer to the County the Laurel Hill
Residential Land.
``(ii) The transfer of property to Fairfax County,
Virginia, under clause (i) shall be subject to such terms and
conditions that the Administrator of General Services
considers to be appropriate to protect the interests of the
United States.
``(iii) Any proceeds derived from the sale of the Laurel
Hill Residential Land by Fairfax County that exceed the
County's cost of acquiring, financing (which shall be deemed
a County cost from the time of financing of the Meadowood
Farm acquisition to the receipt of proceeds of the sale or
sales of the Laurel Hill Residential Land until such time as
the proceeds of such sale or sales exceed the acquisition and
financing costs of Meadowood Farm to the County), preparing,
and conveying Meadowood Farm and costs incurred for
improving, preparing, and conveying the Laurel Hill
Residential Land shall be remitted to the United States and
deposited into the special fund established pursuant to
paragraph (4)(A)(viii).
``(C) Management of property.--The property transferred to
the Secretary of the Interior
[[Page 24586]]
under this section shall be managed by the Bureau of Land
Management for public use and recreation purposes.''.
Sec. 166. Section 158(b) of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1527)
is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Source of Funds; Transfer.--An amount not to exceed
$5,000,000 from the National Highway System funds apportioned
to the District of Columbia under section 104 of title 23,
United States Code, may be used for purposes of carrying out
the project under subsection (a).''.
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2001''.
district of columbia appropriations
Following is explanatory language on H.R. 5547, as
introduced on October 25, 2000.
The conferees on H.R. 4942 agree with the matter included
in H.R. 5547 and enacted in this conference report by
reference and the following description of it. This bill was
developed through negotiations by the conferees on the
differences in H.R. 4942. References in the following
description to the ``conference agreement'' mean the matter
included in the introduced bill enacted by this conference
report. References to the House bill mean the House passed
version of H.R. 4942. References to the Senate bill or Senate
Amendment mean the Senate passed version of H.R. 4942.
The conference agreement on the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2001, incorporates some of the provisions
of both the House and Senate versions of the bill. The
language and allocations set forth in House Report 106-786
and Senate Report 106-409 should be complied with unless
specifically addressed in the accompanying bill and statement
of the managers to the contrary. The agreement agreed to
herein, while repeating some report language for emphasis,
does not negate the language referenced above unless
expressly provided.
A summary chart appears later in this statement just before
the explanations of the general provisions showing the
Federal appropriations by account and the allocation of
District funds by agency or office under each appropriation
title showing the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, the fiscal
year 2001 request, the House and Senate recommendations and
the conference allowance.
Federal Funds
Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support
Appropriates $17,000,000 as proposed by the Senate instead
of $14,000,000 as proposed by the House. The conference
agreement deletes language limiting administrative expenses
to not more than five percent of the appropriation.
Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia
Appropriates $1,250,000 instead of $1,500,000 as proposed
by the House. The appropriation includes $250,000 for payment
to a mentoring program and for hotline services; $250,000 for
payment to a character education initiative; $250,000 for a
program to provide basic values training in the local public
schools; and $500,000 for the design, construction, and
maintenance of a trash rack system to mitigate environmental
harm caused by trash carried in city runoff which flows
through the National Arboretum via the Hickey Run Watershed
into the Anacostia River.
The conferees direct the District's Chief Financial Officer
to make the above payments within 30 days of the enactment of
this Act as follows: $250,000 to the International Youth
Service and Development Corp., for the mentoring program and
hotline services; $250,000 to Values First, a 501(c)3
educational organization, to expand their current program
that trains District public school teachers in how to instill
basic values into the lives of their students; $250,000 to
the Best Friends Foundation for the character education
initiative; and $500,000 to the National Arboretum for the
Hickey Run stormwater outfall project. The conferees do not
expect the Chief Financial Officer to administer these
programs or get involved in any way with the programs except
to ensure that the funds are disbursed promptly and correctly
to the proper organizations. The conferees direct that each
of the organizations provide an annual report by November 30,
2001, to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
the Senate.
Federal Payment for Commercial Revitalization Program
Appropriates $1,500,000 as proposed by the Senate to
provide offsets against local taxes for a commercial
revitalization program in enterprise zones and low and
moderate income areas in the District of Columbia.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Public Schools
Appropriates $500,000 as proposed by the Senate for the
District of Columbia Public Schools to be used for programs
to reduce school violence and to enhance the reading skills
of local public school students.
Federal Payment to the Metropolitan Police Department
Appropriates $100,000 to the Metropolitan Police Department
to fund a youth safe haven police mini-station for mentoring
high risk youth.
Federal Contribution to Covenant House Washington
Appropriates $500,000 as proposed by the Senate for a
contribution to the construction in Southeast Washington of a
new community service center for homeless, runaway and at-
risk youth.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia
Corrections Trustee Operations
Appropriates $134,200,000 as proposed by the Senate instead
of $134,300,000 as proposed by the House.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts
Appropriates $105,000,000 instead of $99,500,000 as
proposed by the House and $109,080,000 as proposed by the
Senate and allocates $7,409,000 for the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals instead of $7,709,000 as proposed by the
House and the Senate and $71,121,000 for the District of
Columbia Superior Court instead of $72,399,000 as proposed by
the House and the Senate and $17,890,000 for the Court System
instead of $16,892,000 as proposed by the House and
$17,892,000 as proposed by the Senate. The appropriated
amount includes (1) $5,255,000 to finance a pay adjustment of
8.48 percent for nonjudicial employees as proposed by the
Senate, and (2) $3,325,000 for capital improvements of which
$825,000 is for roofing repairs to the Old Courthouse instead
of $2,500,000 for capital improvements as proposed by the
House and $5,825,000 for capital improvements of which
$825,000 is for roofing repairs to the Old Courthouse as
proposed by the Senate. The conference agreement retains the
proviso concerning the purchase, installation and operation
of an Integrated Justice Information System as proposed by
the House.
Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts
Appropriates $34,387,000 as proposed by the House instead
of $38,387,000 as proposed by the Senate and makes conforming
technical changes.
Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency for the District of Columbia
Appropriates $112,527,000 as proposed by the Senate instead
of $115,752,000 as proposed by House and allocates
$67,521,000 for Community Supervision and Sex Offender
Registration as proposed by the Senate instead of $69,871,000
as proposed by the House, and $26,228,000 for the Pretrial
Services Agency as proposed by the Senate instead of
$27,103,000 as proposed by the House. The conference
agreement also requires that $17,854,000 of this
appropriation, of which $836,000 is for the Public Defender
Service, be used to improve pretrial defendant and post-
conviction offender supervision, to enhance drug testing and
sanctions-based treatment programs and other treatment
services, to expand intermediate sanctions and offender
reentry programs, to continue planning and design proposals
for a residential sanctions center, and to make improvements
in the administrative infrastructure including information
technology instead of $22,161,000 of which $836,000 is for
the Public Defender Service as proposed by the House. The
conference agreement inserts language as proposed by the
Senate to allow the agency to use funds for the transfer and
hire of motor vehicles. The conferees direct that vehicles be
provided directly by the General Services Administration and
not by a third party leasing company.
Federal Payment for Washington Interfaith Network
Appropriates $1,000,000 as proposed by the House to the
Washington Interfaith Network to reimburse the Network for
costs incurred in carrying out preconstruction activities at
the former Fort Dupont Dwellings and Additions.
Federal Payment for Plan to Simplify Employee
Compensation Systems
Appropriates $250,000 to the Mayor as proposed by the House
to contract for the study and development of a plan to
simplify the pay and compensation systems and schedules and
work rules that currently apply to employees of the District
of Columbia. Simplifying the pay and compensation systems and
schedules and work rules should result in significant savings
to District taxpayers and make the District government's
operations more efficient.
The conferees agree that the solicitation for the contract
is to provide that any contract awarded under the
solicitation require that the contractor submit a plan to the
Mayor and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
that includes, at a minimum, certain specific elements. The
first of these is a review of the current pay and
compensation systems and schedules and work rules that apply
to employees of the District of Columbia. Second, the plan
the contractor develops must contain a review of the best
practices of state and local governments and other
appropriate organizations regarding pay and compensation
systems. The conferees recognize that a substantial number of
District employees are members of employee unions; therefore,
a review of best practices should focus on state and local
governments and other organizations that
[[Page 24587]]
have similarly unionized workforces. Third, the plan must
contain a proposal for simplifying pay and compensation
systems and schedules that apply to employees of the District
of Columbia. Finally, the contractor's plan must contain an
estimated timeframe for completion and strategies for
implementing the plan, including identification of any
statutory, contractual, or other barriers to implementation.
Included in the discussion of barriers should be discussion
of mitigating strategies and a recognition of the potential
barrier of collective bargaining agreements to the successful
implementation of a simplified pay system. This section
applies to all employees of the District of Columbia,
including employees of all independent agencies, school board
employees and employees of District agencies currently in
receivership and other agencies, but does not apply to
employees who work in the District court system.
The Mayor is to develop a proposed solicitation within 90
days of enactment of this Act and submit a copy to the
Comptroller General for his review at least 90 days prior to
issuance of the proposed solicitation. The Comptroller
General shall, within 45 days after receipt of the copy of
the proposed solicitation, review it to ensure that it
adequately addresses all of the elements required by this
section and report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations the results of his review. The conferees
expect the District government to supplement this amount, if
necessary, with local funds, and for the Mayor to allocate
the contract cost as he deems appropriate.
Metrorail Construction
Appropriates $25,000,000 in Federal funds for a
contribution to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority as proposed by the Senate instead of $25,000,000 of
which $17,900,000 would be by transfer as proposed by the
House and inserts language concerning the release of the
funds and the application of 49 U.S.C. 5309(a)(2) to this
project as proposed by the Senate. The conferees agree that
this contribution is contingent upon the District government
setting aside $25,000,000 in its capital budget for the
project and establishing a special taxing district for the
neighborhood of the proposed Metrorail site to contribute an
additional $25,000,000. The conferees note that the
commitment of $25,000,000 has not been secured by the
establishment of a special taxing district. Until this
funding has been secured, the Federal funds appropriated
under this heading are to be held by the U.S. Treasury. The
conferees agree that this appropriation is not to be
considered a one-third contribution to this project and do
not plan to revise the Federal contribution to reflect a
percentage contribution. The conferees direct the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to closely monitor the
development of this project, especially the cost containment
issues, and will hold the Authority responsible and
accountable.
Federal Payment for National Museum of American Music
Deletes the paragraph appropriating $250,000 to the Federal
City Council for planning costs for a National Museum of
American Music proposed by the House and deleted by the
Senate. The conferees have not recommended additional funding
for the National Museum of American Music. The President's
budget proposal includes $3,000,000 to fund the staff,
consultants, design, environmental assessments and
preparation of Request for Proposals to complete the planning
phase of the museum.
In the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 1999 (Public Law 105-277), the Federal City Council, a
private, non-profit organization, received $300,000 to
conduct a needs and design study for a National Museum of
American Music. Although the needs and design study has not
been completed, the scope of the envisioned project has
expanded to a multi-million dollar, mixed-use development
that would include, in addition to the Museum, performance
and entertainment venues, retail and dining facilities,
hotels and housing, a performing arts theater, and an
elementary school. The Federal City Council and other
interested parties have targeted the current Washington
Convention Center site as the preferred location for the
development.
The conferees have determined that additional funding of
the project is premature. First, local District officials
have not had an opportunity to review and analyze the
proposed project. Nor has the District government made a
financial commitment to this project. Also at issue is
whether the project envisioned by the Federal City Council
constitutes the highest and best use of the real estate under
consideration. Finally, the conferees have not been provided
with a detailed analysis of the project scope and all
potential funding sources.
The conferees direct the General Accounting Office to
review the National Museum of American Music project proposal
and report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House by April 1, 2001, on: (1) total project cost
estimates; (2) all potential project funding sources
(including local District, Federal, and private funding
sources); (3) an analysis of whether the proposed project is
suited for the site of the current Convention Center; and (4)
whether it constitutes the highest and best use of the
property at issue. The conferees encourage the staff of the
Library of Congress and the Smithsonian to collaborate with
the staff of the Federal City Council in the preparation of
this report. The requested data will enable the Committees to
more carefully analyze the appropriateness of continued
Federal funding.
Federal Payment for Brownfield Remediation
Appropriates $3,450,000 for environmental and
infrastructure costs at Poplar Point as proposed by the
Senate. The conference agreement allocates $2,150,000 for
environmental assessment, site remediation and wetlands
restoration of the 11 acres of real property under the
jurisdiction of the District of Columbia and no more than
$1,300,000 for infrastructure costs for an entrance to
Anacostia Park as proposed by the Senate. The conference
action also prohibits the use of any of these funds to
purchase private property in the Poplar Point area as
proposed by the Senate. The conferees note that in addition
to the $3,450,000 provided under this heading, $4,615,000 in
Federal funds appropriated for infrastructure needs in Public
Law 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681-552,3) has also been allocated to
the Poplar Point project.
Presidential Inauguration
Appropriates $5,961,000 as proposed by the House instead of
$6,211,000 as proposed by the Senate to reimburse the
District government for expenses incurred in connection with
presidential inauguration activities.
Children's National Medical Center
Appropriates $500,000 for a Federal contribution to the
Children's National Medical Center to be used for the network
of satellite pediatric health clinics for children and
families in underserved neighborhoods and communities in the
District.
Child Advocacy Center
Appropriates $500,000 for a Federal contribution to the
Child Advocacy Center for its Safe Shores program. The
conferees are concerned with the inadequate treatment
received by young victims of abuse and neglect. Safe Shores
is the District's only Child Advocacy Center and serves an
ever-growing population of maltreated children in the
District of Columbia. Safe Shores is equipped with clinicians
trained to work specifically with children to help facilitate
resolution and healing for the young victims of abuse and
neglect. Safe Shores works with the Metropolitan Police
Department and the Child and Family Services Agency as an
integral part of the multidisciplinary child welfare team in
the District and is vital to effective intervention and case
management. The conferees are disturbed by the lack of
financial support offered the Center by the District's
current administration, particularly in light of recent
discoveries by the General Accounting Office of the crisis
situation of the District's child welfare system.
St. Coletta of Greater Washington Expansion Project
Appropriates $1,000,000 for a Federal contribution to St.
Coletta of Greater Washington, Inc., for costs associated
with the establishment of a day program and comprehensive
case management services for mentally retarded and multiple-
handicapped adolescents and adults in the District of
Columbia, including property acquisition and construction.
The facility will be located at 212 M Street, S.E., and will
provide vocational and functional life skills training,
speech/language therapy, occupational therapy, physical
therapy and behavior management to 100 adolescents and 50
adults.
District of Columbia Special Olympics
Appropriates $250,000 for a Federal contribution to the
District of Columbia Special Olympics which provides a year-
round 15-sport program serving 2,500 mentally and
developmentally disabled children and adults in the District.
Federal Contribution for Enforcement of Law Banning Possession of
Tobacco Products by Minors
The conference agreement appropriates $100,000 under
section 151 of the general provisions to the Metropolitan
Police Department on the condition that the District
government enacts into law a ban on the possession of tobacco
products by minors as specified in section 151. The funds are
to be used by the Department to enforce the ban.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS
Operating Expenses
Division of Expenses
Inserts an additional exception to the spending ceiling for
operating expenses to reflect the reserve fund and provides
that operating expenses for the District for fiscal year 2001
shall not exceed $5,677,379,000 of which $172,607,000 is from
intra-District funds and $3,250,783,000 is from local funds
instead $5,689,176,000 of which $192,804,000 is from intra-
District funds and $3,245,523,000 is from local funds as
proposed by the House and $5,546,536,000 of which
$192,804,000 is from intra-District funds and $3,096,383,000
is from local funds as proposed by the Senate. The changes in
the amounts reflect actions taken by the conferees in the
funding levels under the various appropriation headings.
[[Page 24588]]
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority
Appropriates $3,140,000 from other funds instead of
$3,140,000 from local funds as proposed by the House and
$6,500,000 from other funds as proposed by the Senate. The
conference agreement retains the proviso concerning the cap
on the salary levels of the Executive Director and the
General Counsel as proposed by the House and inserts a
proviso that limits severance or bonus payments and payments
under agreements in effect before the enactment of this Act
to two weeks for each full year of employment with the
Authority. The severance payments are only for employees who
are employed by the Authority during the entire period which
begins on the date of the enactment of this Act and ends on
September 30, 2001. An employee who leaves prior to September
30, 2001 is not entitled to any payment other than their
regular salary for services performed prior to separation and
a payment for unused regular annual leave accrued by the
individual. The conferees believe the severance allowance
recommended is generous.
Governmental Direction and Support
Appropriates $195,771,000 including $162,172,000 from local
funds instead of $194,521,000 including $160,922,000 from
local funds as proposed by the House and $194,271,000
including $160,672,000 from local funds as proposed by the
Senate. The conference agreement deletes (1) the proviso
proposed by the Senate regarding the use of freed-up
appropriations and (2) the proviso proposed by the House that
would have restricted the availability of funds for the
Maximus, Inc., revenue recovery services contract GF 98104.
The conference agreement includes language that provides the
Office of the Chief Technology Officer with small purchase
procurement authority of $500,000 as proposed by the House.
Office of the Mayor.--The conference agreement provides
$7,467,000 instead of $5,967,000 provided by the House and
$7,217,000 provided by the Senate. The allowance recommended
by the conferees includes $1,500,000 in Federal funds to
remain available until expended as proposed by the Senate for
the commercial revitalization program and $250,000 in Federal
funds as proposed by the House for the study and development
of a plan to simplify the pay and compensation systems and
schedules and work rules that currently apply to employees of
the District of Columbia. A discussion of the requirements
and expectations regarding the plan to simplify the
District's pay and compensation systems can be found earlier
in this report under ``Federal Payment for Plan to Simplify
Employee Compensation Systems''. The Mayor's request of
$10,717,000 was adjusted to exclude $5,000,000 for the one-
time appropriation in fiscal year 2000 for the commercial
revitalization program. The conference agreement includes
language as proposed by the Senate that makes the $5,000,000
available until expended.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.--The conference
agreement includes an increase of $1,250,000 in Federal funds
appropriated earlier in this Act for the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer instead of $1,500,000 as proposed by the
House. The allowance includes $250,000 for payment to a
mentoring program and for hotline services; $250,000 for
payment to a character education initiative; $250,000 for a
program to provide basic values training in the local public
schools; and $500,000 for the design, construction, and
maintenance of a trash rack system to mitigate environmental
harm caused by trash carried in city runoff which flows
through the National Arboretum via the Hickey Run Watershed
into the Anacostia River. Instructions to the Chief Financial
Officer on the payment of these amounts are included under
Federal Funds earlier in this report.
St. Elizabeths Hospital.--The conference agreement inserts
a proviso that requires the Chief Financial Officer to submit
a study by March 1, 2001, to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House and the Senate on the merits and potential of
privatizing the operation and administration of St.
Elizabeths Hospital.
Economic Development and Regulation
The conference agreement deletes the proviso proposed by
the Senate regarding the use of freed-up appropriations.
Public Safety and Justice
Appropriates $762,546,000 including $591,565,000 from local
funds instead of $762,346,000 including $591,365,000 from
local funds as proposed by the House and the Senate. The
increase of $200,000 reflects two Federal payments of
$100,000 each appropriated elsewhere in this Act and
described below.
Youth safe haven.--The conference agreement provides
$100,000 in Federal funds for a youth safe haven police mini-
station program to be established in coordination with the
Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation. The program creates youth
safe havens in which nonprofit groups work with young people
after school in public housing, other low-income
neighborhoods and middle schools in the District of Columbia.
Tobacco possession by minors.--The conference agreement
provides $100,000 in Federal funds included in section 151 of
the general provisions to the Metropolitan Police Department
on the condition that the District government enacts into law
a ban on the possession of tobacco products by minors as
specified in section 151. The funds are to be used by the
Department to enforce the ban.
Other.--The conference agreement includes a proviso that
caps the number of police officers assigned to the Mayor's
security detail at 15 as proposed by the Senate and deletes
the proviso proposed by the Senate regarding the use of
freed-up appropriations. The conference agreement also
deletes the proviso proposed by the Senate concerning Chapter
23 of title 11 of the District of Columbia Code relating to
the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. That proviso is
replaced by section 148 under General Provisions .
Public Education System
Appropriates $998,918,000 including $824,867,000 from local
funds as proposed by the Senate instead of $995,418,000
including $821,367,000 from local funds as proposed by the
House and deletes the proviso proposed by the Senate
regarding the use of freed-up appropriations.
Public schools.--Allocates $769,943,000 including
$629,309,000 from local funds for public schools as proposed
by the Senate instead of $769,443,000 including $628,809,000
from local funds as proposed by the House. The increase above
the House allowance includes $250,000 for a program to reduce
school violence and $250,000 for a program to enhance the
reading skills of public school students.
College tuition support.--Allocates $17,000,000 from
Federal funds appropriated earlier in this Act as proposed by
the Senate instead of $14,000,000 from Federal funds
appropriated earlier in this Act as proposed by the House.
Public charter schools.--Inserts language as proposed by
the Senate requiring quarterly reimbursements to be based on
quarterly enrollment reports. The conference agreement
includes language as proposed by the House requiring that the
quarterly payment of October 15, 2000 to the public charter
schools be 50 percent of each public charter school's annual
entitlement based on the unaudited October 5 enrollment
count. The conference agreement includes language as proposed
by the House requiring that the balance of unused allocations
for public charter schools be available for public education
in accordance with the School Reform Act of 1995. The
conference agreement deletes language proposed by the House
that would have required the Mayor to convene a task force
concerning the School Reform Act of 1995 for the purpose of
instituting a funding mechanism for the projected growth of
charter schools.
Excel Institute Adult Education Program.--Inserts language
as proposed by the House that allows funds allocated to the
Institute to be used for construction and to acquire services
from the General Services Administration on a reimbursable
basis.
Learning support conference.--Deletes the date requirement
for a conference on learning support for children ages 3 and
4.
Weighted student formula.--Provides that no less than
$436,452,000 is to be expended on local schools through the
Weighted Student Formula as proposed by the Senate instead of
$389,219,000 as proposed by the House.
Federal funds.--Allocates $250,000 in Federal funds
appropriated earlier in this Act for a program to reduce
school violence in the District's public schools as proposed
by the Senate and $250,000 in Federal funds appropriated
earlier in this Act for a program to enhance the reading
skills of District public school students as proposed by the
Senate.
Evaluation process.--Inserts language concerning the
evaluation process for public school employees as a proviso
as proposed by the Senate instead of as a general provision
(section 145 of House bill) as proposed by the House.
Fiscal year change.--Inserts language that provides advance
appropriations on July 1, 2001 to public charter schools and
to regular public schools based on the District's proposed
budget for fiscal year 2002 as submitted to Congress and
requires that the advances be charged against the final
amount enacted into law in the fiscal year 2002 District of
Columbia Appropriations Act instead of language proposed by
the House that would have changed the fiscal year. The
language recommended by the conferees will facilitate the
operation of the public charter schools and the regular
public schools by aligning funding with the programmatic
school year that begins July 1, 2001 and ends June 30, 2002.
Human Support Services
(Including transfer of funds)
Appropriates $1,535,654,000 including $637,347,000 from
local funds instead of $1,532,204,000 including $633,897,000
from local funds as proposed by the House and $1,532,704,000
including $634,397,000 from local funds as proposed by the
Senate and changes the heading to reflect the inclusion of
transfers in this paragraph. The conference agreement deletes
the proviso proposed by the Senate regarding the use of
freed-up appropriations.
Brownfield remediation at Poplar Point.--The conference
agreement reflects an increase of $3,450,000 from Federal
funds previously appropriated in this Act for environmental
and infrastructure costs at Poplar Point as proposed by the
Senate. The conference agreement allocates $2,150,000 for
environmental
[[Page 24589]]
assessment, site remediation and wetlands restoration of the
11 acres of real property under the jurisdiction of the
District of Columbia and no more than $1,300,000 for
infrastructure costs for an entrance to Anacostia Park as
proposed by the Senate. The conference action also prohibits
the use of any of these funds to purchase private property in
the Poplar Point area as proposed by the Senate. The
conferees note that in addition to the $3,450,000 provided
under this heading, $4,615,000 in Federal funds appropriated
for infrastructure needs in Public Law 105-277 (112 Stat.
2681-552,3) has also been allocated to the Poplar Point
project.
Ready, Willing and Able Program.--The conference agreement
retains the proviso that provides $1,250,000 be paid to the
Doe Fund for the operation of its Ready, Willing, and Able
Program in the District of Columbia as proposed by the House.
Hamilton Field.--The conference agreement retains the
proviso proposed by the Senate that authorizes the District
of Columbia to enter into a long-term lease of Hamilton Field
with Gonzaga College High School in exchange for Gonzaga
introducing and implementing a youth baseball program focused
on 13 to 18 year old residents, summer and fall baseball
programs and baseball clinics.
Public benefit corporation.--The conference agreement
includes a proviso that allows the District to transfer not
more than $90,000,000 from local funds provided under other
accounts in this Act for the purpose of restructuring the
delivery of health services in the District instead of 15
percent of local funds in the appropriation as proposed by
the Senate. The language requires that the restructuring be
pursuant to a restructuring plan approved by the Mayor, the
Council, the Financial Authority, and the Board of Directors
of the Public Benefit Corporation that reduces personnel
levels consistent with the reduction-in-force set forth in
the August 25, 2000 resolution of the Board of Directors of
the Corporation which requires reducing personnel by at least
500 full-time equivalent employees without replacement by
contract personnel. The language also requires that no funds
be expended until 10 calendar days after the restructuring
plan has received final approval and a copy has been
submitted by the Mayor to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the House Committee on Government Reform, and
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. The language
agreed to by the conferees also requires that the plan
include a certification that it does not rely upon any
current or future request for additional appropriation of
Federal Funds. Conforming language is included under the
heading ``District of Columbia Health and Hospitals Public
Benefit Corporation''.
Public Works
Deletes the proviso proposed by the Senate regarding the
use of freed-up appropriations and makes editorial changes to
language allocating funds to various programs.
Receivership Programs
Deletes the proviso proposed by the Senate regarding the
use of freed-up appropriations.
Reserve
Modifies language proposed by the Senate that provides for
the replacement of funds expended during fiscal year 2000
from the $150,000,000 Reserve instead of the establishment of
a $150,000,000 Reserve by the Chief Financial Officer as
proposed by the Senate. The modified language also provides
that no funds are to be obligated or expended until the
emergency reserve fund has been fully funded for fiscal year
2001 as proposed by the Senate. The House language provided
for the replacement of funds expended and prohibited the
obligation of the reserves until certain conditions were met.
Emergency Reserve Fund
Inserts language providing for an emergency reserve fund
from local funds as proposed by the Senate.
Repayment of Loans and Interest
Deletes the proviso proposed by the Senate regarding the
use of freed-up appropriations and inserts a proviso proposed
by the Senate providing that unused reserve funds shall be
used for Pay-As-You-Go Capital Funds.
Presidential Inauguration
Appropriates $5,961,000 from Federal funds appropriated
earlier in this Act as proposed by the House instead of
$6,211,000 from Federal funds appropriated earlier in this
Act as proposed by the Senate.
Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund Transfer Payment
Modifies language proposed by the House and the Senate
making the transfer of not to exceed $61,406,000 to the
Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund subject to the issuance of
bonds to pay the purchase price of the District's right,
title and interest in and to the Master Settlement Agreement,
and consistent with the Tobacco Settlement Financing and
Trust Fund Amendment Act of 2000.
Cafeteria Plan Savings
Deletes the proviso proposed by the Senate regarding the
use of freed-up appropriations.
Enterprise and Other Funds
Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington Aqueduct
The conference agreement provides $140,725,000 for fiscal
year 2001 for the following capital projects: $77,372,000 for
the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, zero for the
stormwater program, $21,450,000 for the water program,
$1,182,000 for the sanitary sewer program, zero for the
combined sewer program, $1,699,000 for the capital equipment
program and $39,022,000 for the Water and Sewer Authority's
share of the Washington Aqueduct capital projects. The
conferees agree that the Water and Sewer Authority is
expressly authorized to expend funds between projects
authorized in prior years' budgets within these seven
projects provided the Committees on Appropriations of the
House and the Senate are notified of the details in writing
at least 30 days prior to the obligation of the funds.
The conferees agree that section 140(b) of the House bill
and section 127(b) of the Senate bill (new section 129(b))
also applies to the Water and Sewer Authority and that the
agency head of the Water and Sewer Authority may abolish
positions and separate the employees encumbering those
abolished positions in accordance with the modified reduction
in force procedures and severance pay authorized in section
129(b). The conferees agree that while section 129(b) applies
to the Water and Sewer Authority, it does not change the
Authority's general exemption from coverage under the
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-
601.1 et seq.), or the Authority's independent legal status
within the District government.
District of Columbia Health and Hospitals
Public Benefit Corporation
Inserts language that (1) requires a restructuring plan for
D.C. General Hospital to be approved by District officials
prior to increasing the appropriation through reprogramming,
transfers, loans or other mechanisms, (2) requires the
District's Chief Financial Officer to sign an affidavit
certifying that payments made on behalf of the Corporation do
not constitute a violation of any provision of subchapter III
of chapter 13 of title 31, United States Code, or of this
Act, (3) clarifies what may be covered by an affidavit, and
(4) makes it unlawful to order a person to sign any affidavit
or to provide a signature on an affidavit by proxy, machine,
computer or facsimile device. The conference action does not
prohibit reimbursement to the Corporation for services
provided to other District government agencies and grants
that in prior years were not included in the amounts
appropriated from other funds.
District of Columbia Retirement Board
The conference agreement retains the proviso that requires
the Retirement Board to provide quarterly reports of the
allocations of charges by fund and expenditures of all funds.
Summary Table of Conference Recommendations by Agency and FY 2001
Financial Plan
A summary table showing the Federal appropriations by
account and the allocation of District funds by agency or
office under each appropriation heading for fiscal year 2000,
the fiscal year 2001 request, the House and Senate
recommendations, and the conference allowance, and the fiscal
year 2001 Financial Plan which is the starting point for the
independent auditor's comparison with actual year-end results
as required by section 132 of the Act follow:
[[Page 24590]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.001
[[Page 24591]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.002
[[Page 24592]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.003
[[Page 24593]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.004
[[Page 24594]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.005
[[Page 24595]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.006
[[Page 24596]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.007
[[Page 24597]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.008
[[Page 24598]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.009
[[Page 24599]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.010
[[Page 24600]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.011
[[Page 24601]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.012
[[Page 24602]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.013
[[Page 24603]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.014
[[Page 24604]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.015
[[Page 24605]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.016
[[Page 24606]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.017
[[Page 24607]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.018
[[Page 24608]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25OC00.019
[[Page 24609]]
General Provisions
In addition to the explanations that follow, the conference
agreement changes several section numbers for sequencing
purposes and makes technical revisions in certain citations.
Unless noted otherwise, the conference agreement refers to
H.R. 4942 as passed the House.
The conference agreement deletes section 101 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate concerning the availability of
consulting service contracts for public inspection.
The conference agreement deletes section 102 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate concerning vouchers covering
expenditures of appropriations being audited before payments.
The conference agreement deletes section 104 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate concerning allowances for
privately owned automobiles and motorcycles used for the
performance of official duties.
The conference agreement retains section 107 of the House
bill (new section 104) requiring the Mayor to maintain an
index of all employment personal services and consulting
contracts with specific information on any severance clause.
The conference agreement retains section 108 of the House
bill (new section 105) prohibiting any appropriation from
remaining available for obligation beyond the current fiscal
year unless expressly so provided.
The conference agreement deletes section 114 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate that would have prohibited the
Mayor from borrowing any funds for capital projects unless
the Council had approved the borrowing by resolution.
The conference agreement deletes section 115 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate that would have prohibited the
Mayor from using moneys borrowed for capital projects for
operating expenses.
The conference agreement modifies section 116 of the House
bill and section 109 of the Senate bill (new section 111)
concerning reprogramming guidelines. The modification allows
inter-appropriation transfers of not-to-exceed 2 percent
provided the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
the House are notified in writing 30 days in advance as
proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement deletes section 117 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate that would have prohibited the
use of Federal funds to provide a personal cook, chauffeur,
or other personal servants to any officer or employee of the
District of Columbia government.
The conference agreement retains section 110 of the Senate
bill (new section 112) stating that consistent with the
provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), appropriations under this
Act shall be applied only to the objects for which the
appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law.
The conference agreement deletes section 118 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate that would have prohibited the
use of Federal funds to procure passenger automobiles as
defined in the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act of 1980 with an
Environmental Protection Agency estimated miles per gallon
average of less than 22 miles per gallon.
The conference agreement deletes section 119 of the Senate
bill concerning the use of previously appropriated funds for
accounting and financial management services as determined by
the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority.
The conference agreement amends section 120 of the Senate
bill (new section 122) increasing the amount that can be paid
to attorneys representing special education students.
The conference agreement amends section 124 of the House
bill and section 116 of the Senate bill (new section 118) to
allow the District of Columbia Courts to accept gifts to
carry out authorized functions or duties without prior
approval by the Mayor.
The conference agreement deletes sections 126, 132, 133,
and 134 of the House bill and incorporates those four
sections into section 118 of the Senate bill (new section
121). These sections relate to reporting requirements for the
District of Columbia Public Schools and the University of the
District of Columbia.
The conference agreement retains section 127 of the House
bill and section 141 of the Senate bill (new section 153)
concerning the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act
of 1977 as it relates to the District of Columbia.
The conference agreement retains section 118 of the Senate
bill (new section 121) which incorporates sections 126, 132,
133, and 134 of the House bill concerning reporting
requirements for the District of Columbia Public Schools and
the University of the District of Columbia.
The conference agreement retains section 127(b) of the
Senate bill instead of section 140(b) of the House bill (new
section 129(b)) concerning the modification of reduction in
force procedures. The Senate version makes the modifications
permanent law.
The conference agreement deletes section 128 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate that would have established
conditions for granting preference to public charter schools
in the use of surplus school properties.
The conference agreement retains section 129 of the House
bill (new section 120) concerning the modification of
contracting requirements for public charter schools in the
District.
The conference agreement deletes section 138 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate concerning the classification
of employees of the District of Columbia public schools.
The conference agreement replaces section 140(b) of the
House bill with section 127(b) of the Senate bill (new
section 129(b)) relating to the modification of reduction in
force procedures. The Senate version makes the modifications
permanent law.
The conference agreement retains section 140(c) of the
House bill (new subsection 129(c)) that requires a prior
analysis with certain exceptions for the procurement of goods
and services in excess of $2,500.
The conference agreement deletes Section 144 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate concerning reorganization
plans.
The conference agreement deletes section 145 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate relating to the evaluation
process for District of Columbia Public School employees.
This section has been included as a proviso under the Public
Education System appropriation heading.
The conference agreement retains section 132 of the Senate
bill (new section 136) which requires the Chief Financial
Officer to submit a revised appropriated funds operating
budget no later than November 1, 2000 or within 30 calendar
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The conference agreement retains Section 147 of the House
bill (new section 134) concerning the transfer or confinement
of inmates classified above the medium security level to the
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center located in Youngstown,
Ohio.
The conference agreement deletes section 148 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate concerning the District's
reserve fund.
The conference agreement retains section 149 of the House
bill (new section 135) relating to the audit of the District
of Columbia Highway Trust Fund by the Inspector General of
the District of Columbia.
The conference agreement retains section 133(b) of the
Senate bill (new section 137(b)) that requires a separate
accounting by individuals or entities who receive any funds
in this Act and carry out a needle exchange program for the
hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
The conference agreement amends section 153 of the House
bill and section 136 of the Senate bill (new section 140)
concerning certifications by chief financial officers that
they understand the duties, including reporting requirements,
and restrictions applicable to them and their agency as a
result of this Act. The language requires the certification
within 60 days as proposed by the Senate instead of within 30
days as proposed by the House and deletes the civil money
penalty for violations as proposed by the Senate.
The conference agreement replaces section 154 of the House
bill with section 144 of the Senate bill (new section 156)
relating to overtime compensation for District government
employees for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The conference agreement retains section 158 of the House
bill (new section 144) which authorizes the Mayor to allocate
the District's limitation amount of qualified zone academy
bonds among qualified zone academies within the District.
The conference agreement retains section 159 of the House
bill (new section 145) which amends Section 11232 of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 concerning Federal benefits for
employees of the Corrections Trustee, Adult Probation, Office
of Parole, and Pretrial Services Agency.
The conference agreement deletes section 160 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate that expressed the sense of
the Congress that patients of St. Elizabeths Hospital and
taxpayers of the District of Columbia are being poorly served
by the current facilities and management of the Hospital.
Language under Governmental Direction and Support requires
the Chief Financial Officer to submit a study to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the merits and
potential savings of privatizing the operation and
administration of the Hospital.
The conference agreement retains section 161 of the House
bill (new section 146) expressing the sense of the Congress
that the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority should quickly complete the
sale of the Franklin School property.
The conference agreement deletes section 162 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate that related to the fiduciary
duty of District officials. The conferees are concerned that
many District officials are treating incidences of
mismanagement in their operations and finances as the norm.
This attitude is unacceptable. Although the conferees are
deleting section 162 from the bill, the conferees continue to
be concerned and urge officials of the District of Columbia
government (including officials of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
independent agencies, boards, commissions, and corporations
of the government) to take all steps necessary to maintain a
fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of the District in the
administration of funds under their control.
[[Page 24610]]
The conference agreement modifies and transfers section 163
of the House bill to the appropriation ``District of Columbia
Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corporation'' as a
proviso that requires a restructuring plan for D.C. General
Hospital to be approved by District officials prior to
increasing the appropriation through reprogrammings,
transfers, loans or other mechanisms.
The conference agreement modifies and transfers the three
subsections of section 164 of the House bill to the
appropriation ``District of Columbia Health and Hospitals
Public Benefit Corporation'' as provisos that (1) require a
certification by the Chief Financial Officer, (2) clarify
what may be covered by an affidavit, and (3) make certain
actions unlawful regarding the signing of any affidavit.
The conference agreement deletes section 165 of the House
bill as proposed by the Senate that would have prohibited the
District of Columbia Health and Hospital Public Benefit
Corporation from obligating or expending any amounts during
fiscal year 2001 unless the Corporation certified that the
obligation or expenditure was within the budget authority
provided to the Corporation in this Act.
The conference agreement retains section 167 of the House
bill (new section 147) that provides that nothing in this Act
may be construed to prevent the Council or Mayor of the
District of Columbia from addressing the issue of
contraceptive coverage by health insurance plans, but
expressing the intent of Congress that any legislation
enacted should include a ``conscience clause'' which provides
exceptions for religious beliefs and moral convictions.
The conference agreement retains section 168 of the House
bill (new section 148) which repeals chapter 23 of title 11,
of the D. C. Code and provides that this section shall take
effect on the date on which legislation enacted by the
Council of the District of Columbia to establish the Office
of the Chief Medical Examiner in the executive branch of the
government of the District of Columbia takes effect.
The conference agreement retains section 169 of the House
bill (new section 149) concerning the prompt payment of
appointed counsel.
The conference agreement revises section 170 of the House
bill (new section 150) concerning the distribution of any
needle or syringe for the hypodermic injection of any illegal
drug in any area of the District of Columbia which is within
1000 feet of a public or private elementary or secondary
school (including a public charter school) other than the
locations cited in this Act and requires monthly reports on
activity involving illegal drugs at or near any public
housing site where a needle exchange program is conducted.
The language also requires the Public Housing Police to
submit monthly reports on illegal drug activity at or near
any public housing site where a needle exchange program is
conducted to the Executive Director of the D.C. Housing
Authority and to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House and the Senate. The monthly reports are to be submitted
by the 15th calendar day of the following month. The
conference agreement requires the Executive Director to
ascertain any concerns of the residents of the public housing
site about the needle exchange programs on or near their
sites and requires the District government to take
appropriate action to require relocation of the program if
recommended by the housing police or by a significant number
of residents of the site.
The conference agreement modifies section 171 of the House
bill (new section 151) by appropriating $100,000 to the
Metropolitan Police Department on the condition that the
District government enacts into law a ban on the possession
of tobacco products by minors as specified in this section.
The funds are to be used by the Department to enforce the
ban.
The conference agreement retains section 166 of the House
bill and section 140 of the Senate bill (new section 152)
that allows the D.C. Corporation Counsel to review and
comment on briefs in private lawsuits and to consult with
officials of the District government regarding such lawsuits.
The conference agreement retains section 142 of the Senate
bill (new section 154) which amends section 450 of the Home
Rule Act concerning a ``Comprehensive Financial Management
Policy'' for the District of Columbia.
The conference agreement retains section 143 of the Senate
bill (new section 155) which amends section 424(b) of the
Home Rule Act concerning the appointment and duties of the
Chief Financial Officer.
The conference agreement retains section 144 of the Senate
bill and section 154 of the House bill (new section 156)
concerning overtime work for employees of the District of
Columbia government.
The conference agreement retains section 145 of the Senate
bill (new section 157) which allows the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia to
continue to operate its ongoing drug-free workplace testing
program during the period that its plan is being reviewed for
approval by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The conference agreement retains section 146 of the Senate
bill (new section 158) which requires the Mayor to continue
to submit quarterly reports on crime; access to drug abuse
treatment, management of parolees and pre-trial violent
offenders; education, including access to special education
services and student achievement; improvements in basic
District services; the application for and management of
Federal grants; and indicators of child well-being.
The conference agreement retains section 147 of the Senate
bill (new section 159) establishing reserve funds (emergency
reserve fund and contingency reserve fund). The conference
agreement includes the Senate bill's provision establishing
both an emergency and contingency reserve fund in the
District's budget. The provision requires the emergency
reserve to be established first, through a deposit each year
of one percent of the District's local funds for four years.
The conferees believe that a four percent emergency reserve
fund, that can only be tapped in extraordinary circumstances
and that is maintained in a separate account, will increase
the fiscal stability of the city and indicate to the
financial markets that the District has a healthy financial
cushion that is walled off from the rest of the general
budget. The conferees believe that holding these reserves can
and will eventually reduce the borrowing costs of the
District.
The conference agreement inserts a new section 160 that
authorizes the District government to delegate its bonding
authority to the District of Columbia Tobacco Settlement
Financing Corporation. The Corporation will use the proceeds
from the bond sale to repay outstanding debt, with expected
savings to the District of $61,400,000 in debt service for
fiscal year 2001. These savings are included in the
District's budget for fiscal year 2001. The conferees believe
that the proceeds of the tobacco securitization will be used
solely to reduce the District's debt or to fund the emergency
reserve fund. The conferees also expect that an amount equal
to 50 percent of the interest savings secured by the tobacco
securitization proceeds will be transferred to the emergency
reserve fund established in this Act.
The conference agreement inserts a new section 161 that
revises section 603(e)(2)(B) of the Student Loan Marketing
Association Reorganization Act of 1996 to require that half
of the public charter school credit enhancement fund created
by that legislation be granted expeditiously by the Mayor to
one or more qualified non-profit corporations to demonstrate
innovative methods of providing credit enhancement assistance
to public charter schools. The remaining half of the funds
are to be administered by a five-person committee that may
either provide those funds directly to charter schools or
provide them to non-profit entities to promote innovative
credit enhancement initiatives. Activities by recipient
entities to enhance the availability of loans to charter
schools may include, but are not limited to, guaranteeing,
insuring or providing security (including by pledging
collateral or taking title to real property) for loans;
providing down payment assistance, subsidizing installment
payments or otherwise directly facilitating loans;
facilitating a secondary market for loans; and helping to
identify potential lending sources, encouraging private
lending and other similar activities to promote lending to
charter schools. Activities by recipient entities to enhance
the availability of bond financing for charter schools may
include, but are not limited to, providing technical and
other administrative assistance; and providing financial or
other assistance necessary to improve the rating or proposed
repayment terms of a bond issue, to induce the participation
of underwriters, or to otherwise enhance the commercial
feasibility of a proposed transaction (including by providing
for all or a portion of installment payments on the bond in
the event of borrower default or, in the case of a bond issue
with a floating rate, a marked increase in the applicable
rate, the pledging of reserves or other collateral, or by
taking title to property or other interests). The conferees
request that quarterly reports be submitted by the 15th
calendar day of the month following the end of each quarter
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the
House Committee on Government Reform, and the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Each report is to include,
but not be limited to, the amount expended by payee for the
quarter and cumulative, the services received for those
funds, the amount of loans generated (gross and net) showing
specific bond counsel and all other fees itemized with the
names of those receiving the funds, the names of the lenders,
the names of the charter schools receiving the proceeds, a
description of the purpose for which each charter school will
use the proceeds and a detailed status report with cost
information on the progress each charter school is making to
accomplish the purpose for which it received the proceeds.
These reports are to continue until the purpose for which the
proceeds were obtained has been accomplished.
The conference agreement inserts a new section 162 which
gives the Mayor the exclusive authority to approve and
execute leases of the Washington Marina and the Washington
municipal fish wharf with the existing lessees for an initial
term of 30 years, together with such other terms and
conditions,
[[Page 24611]]
including renewal options, as the Mayor deems appropriate.
The conference agreement inserts a new section 163 which
transfers two sites, designated for educational use, to
Fairfax County, Virginia immediately upon completion of the
necessary remediation by the General Services Administration.
The conference agreement inserts a new section 164 that
waives restrictions and allows the District's Inspector
General to enter into a contract for the independent audit of
the District's financial statements with an auditor who was a
subcontractor to the independent auditor who audited the
District's financial statements for the preceding fiscal
year.
The conference agreement inserts a new section 165 that
provides an alternative mechanism to exchange property as
envisioned in the Lorton Technical Corrections Act of 1998.
Under the 1998 legislation, the Interior Department was
authorized to hold a portion of the 3,000 acre surplus
Federal property in Lorton, Virginia and exchange it for
Meadowood Farm on Mason Neck, Virginia. The Interior
Department, however, encountered difficulties dealing
directly with the owners of the Meadowood property. Fairfax
County has volunteered to serve as an intermediary acquiring
Meadowood in exchange for the Lorton parcel held by the
Interior Department. Fairfax County believes it can deal more
effectively with the owners of Meadowood. In return, the
county believes that if it acquires the Interior Department's
holding at Lorton it can make the necessary site improvements
to generate a higher sales price. The language provides
assurances that Fairfax County will be reimbursed for all
costs involved in the acquisition of both the Meadowood
property and the Lorton property. Any excess profits from the
sale of the Lorton property would be returned to the General
Services Administration. Any losses incurred by Fairfax
County would be borne by the county alone.
The conference agreement inserts a new section 166 amending
section 158(b) of the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-113, approved November 29, 1999;
113 Stat. 1527) to direct the Federal Highway Administration
to conduct and perform the 14th Street bridge work identified
in section 158. This work relates to a project to complete
design requirements for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act for the construction of expanded
lane capacity for the 14th Street Bridge.
conference total--with comparisons
The total new budget (obligational) authority for the
fiscal year 2001 recommended by the Committee of Conference,
with comparisons to the fiscal year 2000 amount, the 2001
budget estimates, and the House and Senate bills for 2001
follows:
(In thousands of dollars)
Federal Funds:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2000........$436,800
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal year 445,425
House bill, fiscal year 2001..................................414,000
Senate bill, fiscal year 2001.................................448,355
Conference agreement, fiscal year 2001........................444,975
Conference agreement compared with:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2000........+8,175
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2-450
House bill, fiscal year 2001................................+30,975
Senate bill, fiscal year 2001................................-3,380
District of Columbia Funds:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2000.......6,778,433
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal yea6,691,932
House bill, fiscal year 2001................................6,659,171
Senate bill, fiscal year 2001...............................6,666,531
Conference agreement, fiscal year 2001......................6,667,571
Conference agreement, compared with:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2000......-110,862
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal yea-24,361
House bill, fiscal year 2001.................................+8,400
Senate bill, fiscal year 2001................................+1,040
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
The conference agreement would enact the provisions of H.R.
5548 as introduced on October 25, 2000. The text of that bill
follows:
A BILL Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the administration of the
Department of Justice, $88,713,000, of which not to exceed
$3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 43
permanent positions and 44 full-time equivalent workyears and
$8,136,000 shall be expended for the Department Leadership
Program exclusive of augmentation that occurred in these
offices in fiscal year 2000: Provided further, That not to
exceed 41 permanent positions and 48 full-time equivalent
workyears and $4,811,000 shall be expended for the Offices of
Legislative Affairs and Public Affairs: Provided further,
That the latter two aforementioned offices may utilize non-
reimbursable details of career employees within the caps
described in the aforementioned proviso: Provided further,
That the Attorney General is authorized to transfer, under
such terms and conditions as the Attorney General shall
specify, forfeited real or personal property of limited or
marginal value, as such value is determined by guidelines
established by the Attorney General, to a State or local
government agency, or its designated contractor or
transferee, for use to support drug abuse treatment, drug and
crime prevention and education, housing, job skills, and
other community-based public health and safety programs:
Provided further, That any transfer under the preceding
proviso shall not create or confer any private right of
action in any person against the United States, and shall be
treated as a reprogramming under section 605 of this Act.
joint automated booking system
For expenses necessary for the nationwide deployment of a
Joint Automated Booking System including automated capability
to transmit fingerprint and image data, $15,915,000, to
remain available until expended.
narrowband communications
For the costs of conversion to narrowband communications,
including the cost for operation and maintenance of Land
Mobile Radio legacy systems, $205,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
Counterterrorism Fund
For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney
General, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended, to
reimburse any Department of Justice organization for: (1) the
costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability
of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed
as a result of any domestic or international terrorist
incident; and (2) the costs of providing support to counter,
investigate or prosecute domestic or international terrorism,
including payment of rewards in connection with these
activities: Provided, That any Federal agency may be
reimbursed for the costs of detaining in foreign countries
individuals accused of acts of terrorism that violate the
laws of the United States: Provided further, That funds
provided under this paragraph shall be available only after
the Attorney General notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund
For payments authorized by section 109 of the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C.
1008), $201,420,000, to remain available until expended.
administrative review and appeals
For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and
clemency petitions and immigration related activities,
$161,062,000.
detention trustee
For necessary expenses to establish a Federal Detention
Trustee who shall exercise all power and functions authorized
by law relating to the detention of Federal prisoners in non-
Federal institutions or otherwise in the custody of the
United States Marshals Service; and the detention of aliens
in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
$1,000,000: Provided, That the Trustee shall be responsible
for construction of detention facilities or for housing
related to such detention; the management of funds
appropriated to the Department for the exercise of any
detention functions; and the direction of the United States
Marshals Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service
with respect to the exercise of detention policy setting and
operations for the Department.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $41,575,000; including not to exceed
$10,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a confidential
character, to be expended under the direction of, and to be
accounted for solely under the certificate of, the Attorney
General; and for the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and
operation of motor vehicles, without regard to the general
purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year.
United States Parole Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Parole
Commission as authorized by law, $8,855,000.
[[Page 24612]]
Legal Activities
salaries and expenses, general legal activities
For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the
Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including
not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to
be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for
solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and
rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of
Columbia, $535,771,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000
for litigation support contracts shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the funds available in this
appropriation, $18,877,000 shall remain available until
expended only for office automation systems for the legal
divisions covered by this appropriation, and for the United
States Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, the United States
Trustee Program, the Executive Office for Immigration Review,
the Community Relations Service, and offices funded through
``Salaries and Expenses'', General Administration: Provided
further, That of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed
$1,000 shall be available to the United States National
Central Bureau, INTERPOL, for official reception and
representation expenses.
In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the
Department of Justice associated with processing cases under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, as
amended, not to exceed $4,028,000, to be appropriated from
the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.
salaries and expenses, antitrust division
For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and
kindred laws, $95,838,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding
section 3302(b) of title 31, United States Code, not to
exceed $95,838,000 of offsetting collections derived from
fees collected in fiscal year 2001 for premerger notification
filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements
Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18a) shall be retained and used for
necessary expenses in this appropriation, and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as
such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year
2001, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001
appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more
than $0.
salaries and expenses, united states attorneys
For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States
Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative
agreements, $1,250,382,000; of which not to exceed $2,500,000
shall be available until September 30, 2002, for: (1)
training personnel in debt collection; (2) locating debtors
and their property; (3) paying the net costs of selling
property; and (4) tracking debts owed to the United States
Government: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated,
not to exceed $8,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That
not to exceed $10,000,000 of those funds available for
automated litigation support contracts shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That not to exceed
$2,500,000 for the operation of the National Advocacy Center
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the fourth proviso under the heading ``Salaries and Expenses,
United States Attorneys'' in title I of H.R. 3421 of the
106th Congress, as enacted by section 1000(a)(1) of Public
Law 106-113 shall apply to amounts made available under this
heading for fiscal year 2001: Provided further, That, in
addition to reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears
available to the Offices of the United States Attorneys, not
to exceed 9,439 positions and 9,557 full-time equivalent
workyears shall be supported from the funds appropriated in
this Act for the United States Attorneys.
united states trustee system fund
For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee
Program, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 589a(a), $125,997,000, to
remain available until expended and to be derived from the
United States Trustee System Fund: Provided, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, deposits to the
Fund shall be available in such amounts as may be necessary
to pay refunds due depositors: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $125,997,000 of
offsetting collections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 589a(b) shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation and remain available until expended: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated from the Fund shall
be reduced as such offsetting collections are received during
fiscal year 2001, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001
appropriation from the Fund estimated at $0.
salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission
For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,107,000.
salaries and expenses, United States Marshals Service
For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals
Service; including the acquisition, lease, maintenance, and
operation of vehicles, and the purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for police-type use, without regard to the general
purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year,
$572,695,000; of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses;
and of which not to exceed $4,000,000 for development,
implementation, maintenance and support, and training for an
automated prisoner information system shall remain available
until expended: Provided, That, in addition to reimbursable
full-time equivalent workyears available to the United States
Marshals Service, not to exceed 3,947 positions and 3,895
full-time equivalent workyears shall be supported from the
funds appropriated in this Act for the United States Marshals
Service.
construction
For planning, constructing, renovating, equipping, and
maintaining United States Marshals Service prisoner-holding
space in United States courthouses and Federal buildings,
including the renovation and expansion of prisoner movement
areas, elevators, and sallyports, $18,128,000, to remain
available until expended.
Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System Fund, United States
Marshals Service
Beginning in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, payment shall
be made from the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation
System Fund for necessary expenses related to the scheduling
and transportation of United States prisoners and illegal and
criminal aliens in the custody of the United States Marshals
Service, as authorized in 18 U.S.C. 4013, including, without
limitation, salaries and expenses, operations, and the
acquisition, lease, and maintenance of aircraft and support
facilities: Provided, That the Fund shall be reimbursed or
credited with advance payments from amounts available to the
Department of Justice, other Federal agencies, and other
sources at rates that will recover the expenses of Fund
operations, including, without limitation, accrual of annual
leave and depreciation of plant and equipment of the Fund:
Provided further, That proceeds from the disposal of Fund
aircraft shall be credited to the Fund: Provided further,
That amounts in the Fund shall be available without fiscal
year limitation, and may be used for operating equipment
lease agreements that do not exceed 10 years.
In addition, $13,500,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be available only for the purchase of two
Sabreliner-class aircraft.
Federal Prisoner Detention
For expenses, related to United States prisoners in the
custody of the United States Marshals Service, but not
including expenses otherwise provided for in appropriations
available to the Attorney General, $597,402,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That hereafter amounts
appropriated for Federal Prisoner Detention shall be
available to reimburse the Federal Bureau of Prisons for
salaries and expenses of transporting, guarding and providing
medical care outside of Federal penal and correctional
institutions to prisoners awaiting trial or sentencing.
Fees and Expenses of Witnesses
For expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diems of
witnesses, for expenses of contracts for the procurement and
supervision of expert witnesses, for private counsel
expenses, and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by law, including advances, $125,573,000, to
remain available until expended; of which not to exceed
$6,000,000 may be made available for planning, construction,
renovations, maintenance, remodeling, and repair of
buildings, and the purchase of equipment incident thereto,
for protected witness safesites; of which not to exceed
$1,000,000 may be made available for the purchase and
maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation of
protected witnesses; and of which not to exceed $5,000,000
may be made available for the purchase, installation, and
maintenance of secure telecommunications equipment and a
secure automated information network to store and retrieve
the identities and locations of protected witnesses.
salaries and expenses, Community Relations Service
For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service,
$8,475,000 and, in addition, up to $1,000,000 of funds made
available to the Department of Justice in this Act may be
transferred by the Attorney General to this account:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
upon a determination by the Attorney General that emergent
circumstances require additional funding for conflict
prevention and resolution activities of the Community
Relations Service, the Attorney General may transfer such
amounts to the Community Relations Service, from available
appropriations for the current fiscal year for the Department
of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to such
circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant
to the previous proviso shall be treated as a reprogramming
under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
assets forfeiture fund
For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(A)(ii), (B),
(F), and (G), as amended, $23,000,000, to be derived from the
Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.
Radiation Exposure Compensation
Administrative Expenses
For necessary administrative expenses in accordance with
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, $2,000,000.
payment to radiation exposure compensation trust fund
For payments to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust
Fund of claims covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation
Act as in effect on June 1, 2000, $10,800,000.
[[Page 24613]]
Interagency Law Enforcement
Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement
For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation,
and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime
drug trafficking not otherwise provided for, to include
inter-governmental agreements with State and local law
enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug
trafficking, $325,898,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That any amounts
obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used
under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed
from this appropriation: Provided further, That any
unobligated balances remaining available at the end of the
fiscal year shall revert to the Attorney General for
reallocation among participating organizations in succeeding
fiscal years, subject to the reprogramming procedures
described in section 605 of this Act.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution
of crimes against the United States; including purchase for
police-type use of not to exceed 1,236 passenger motor
vehicles, of which 1,142 will be for replacement only,
without regard to the general purchase price limitation for
the current fiscal year, and hire of passenger motor
vehicles; acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of
aircraft; and not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen
emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under
the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the
certificate of, the Attorney General, $3,235,600,000; of
which not to exceed $50,000,000 for automated data processing
and telecommunications and technical investigative equipment
and not to exceed $1,000,000 for undercover operations shall
remain available until September 30, 2002; of which not less
than $437,650,000 shall be for counterterrorism
investigations, foreign counterintelligence, and other
activities related to our national security; of which not to
exceed $10,000,000 is authorized to be made available for
making advances for expenses arising out of contractual or
reimbursable agreements with State and local law enforcement
agencies while engaged in cooperative activities related to
violent crime, terrorism, organized crime, and drug
investigations: Provided, That not to exceed $45,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time
equivalent workyears available to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, not to exceed 25,569 positions and 25,142
full-time equivalent workyears shall be supported from the
funds appropriated in this Act for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation: Provided further, That no funds in this Act
may be used to provide ballistics imaging equipment to any
State or local authority which has obtained similar equipment
through a Federal grant or subsidy unless the State or local
authority agrees to return that equipment or to repay that
grant or subsidy to the Federal Government.
Construction
For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings
and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law
(including equipment for such buildings); conversion and
extension of federally-owned buildings; and preliminary
planning and design of projects; $16,687,000, to remain
available until expended.
Drug Enforcement Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character, to be
expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for
solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General;
expenses for conducting drug education and training programs,
including travel and related expenses for participants in
such programs and the distribution of items of token value
that promote the goals of such programs; purchase of not to
exceed 1,358 passenger motor vehicles, of which 1,079 will be
for replacement only, for police-type use without regard to
the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal
year; and acquisition, lease, maintenance, and operation of
aircraft, $1,363,309,000; of which not to exceed $1,800,000
for research shall remain available until expended, and of
which not to exceed $4,000,000 for purchase of evidence and
payments for information, not to exceed $10,000,000 for
contracting for automated data processing and
telecommunications equipment, and not to exceed $2,000,000
for laboratory equipment, $4,000,000 for technical equipment,
and $2,000,000 for aircraft replacement retrofit and parts,
shall remain available until September 30, 2002; of which not
to exceed $50,000 shall be available for official reception
and representation expenses: Provided, That, in addition to
reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the
Drug Enforcement Administration, not to exceed 7,520
positions and 7,412 full-time equivalent workyears shall be
supported from the funds appropriated in this Act for the
Drug Enforcement Administration.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the administration and
enforcement of the laws relating to immigration,
naturalization, and alien registration, as follows:
enforcement and border affairs
For salaries and expenses for the Border Patrol program,
the detention and deportation program, the intelligence
program, the investigations program, and the inspections
program, including not to exceed $50,000 to meet unforeseen
emergencies of a confidential character, to be expended under
the direction of, and to be accounted for solely under the
certificate of, the Attorney General; purchase for police-
type use (not to exceed 3,165 passenger motor vehicles, of
which 2,211 are for replacement only), without regard to the
general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal
year, and hire of passenger motor vehicles; acquisition,
lease, maintenance and operation of aircraft; research
related to immigration enforcement; for protecting and
maintaining the integrity of the borders of the United States
including, without limitation, equipping, maintaining, and
making improvements to the infrastructure; and for the care
and housing of Federal detainees held in the joint
Immigration and Naturalization Service and United States
Marshals Service's Buffalo Detention Facility,
$2,547,057,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be
available for costs associated with the training program for
basic officer training, and $5,000,000 is for payments or
advances arising out of contractual or reimbursable
agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies
while engaged in cooperative activities related to
immigration; of which not to exceed $5,000,000 is to fund or
reimburse other Federal agencies for the costs associated
with the care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled
illegal aliens: Provided, That none of the funds available to
the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall be available
to pay any employee overtime pay in an amount in excess of
$30,000 during the calendar year beginning January 1, 2001:
Provided further, That uniforms may be purchased without
regard to the general purchase price limitation for the
current fiscal year: Provided further, That, in addition to
reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, not to exceed 19,783
positions and 19,191 full-time equivalent workyears shall be
supported from the funds appropriated under this heading in
this Act for the Immigration and Naturalization Service:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this or
any other Act shall be used for the continued operation of
the San Clemente and Temecula checkpoints unless the
checkpoints are open and traffic is being checked on a
continuous 24-hour basis.
citizenship and benefits, immigration support and program direction
For all programs of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service not included under the heading ``Enforcement and
Border Affairs'', $578,819,000, of which not to exceed
$400,000 for research shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That the Attorney General may transfer any funds
appropriated under this heading and the heading ``Enforcement
and Border Affairs'' between said appropriations
notwithstanding any percentage transfer limitations imposed
under this appropriation Act and may direct such fees as are
collected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
the activities funded under this heading and the heading
``Enforcement and Border Affairs'' for performance of the
functions for which the fees legally may be expended:
Provided further, That not to exceed 40 permanent positions
and 40 full-time equivalent workyears and $4,300,000 shall be
expended for the Offices of Legislative Affairs and Public
Affairs: Provided further, That the latter two aforementioned
offices shall not be augmented by personnel details,
temporary transfers of personnel on either a reimbursable or
non-reimbursable basis, or any other type of formal or
informal transfer or reimbursement of personnel or funds on
either a temporary or long-term basis: Provided further, That
the number of positions filled through non-career appointment
at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for which
funding is provided in this Act or is otherwise made
available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service,
shall not exceed four permanent positions and four full-time
equivalent workyears: Provided further, That none of the
funds available to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
shall be used to pay any employee overtime pay in an amount
in excess of $30,000 during the calendar year beginning
January 1, 2001: Provided further, That funds may be used,
without limitation, for equipping, maintaining, and making
improvements to the infrastructure and the purchase of
vehicles for police-type use within the limits of the
Enforcement and Border Affairs appropriation: Provided
further, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time
equivalent workyears available to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, not to exceed 3,100 positions and
3,150 full-time equivalent workyears shall be supported from
the funds appropriated under this heading in this Act for the
Immigration and Naturalization Service: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, during
fiscal year 2001, the Attorney General is authorized and
directed to impose disciplinary action, including termination
of employment, pursuant to policies and procedures applicable
to employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for any
employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who
violates policies and procedures set forth by the Department
of Justice relative to the granting of citizenship or who
willfully deceives the Congress or department leadership on
any matter.
construction
For planning, construction, renovation, equipping, and
maintenance of buildings and
[[Page 24614]]
facilities necessary for the administration and enforcement
of the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and
alien registration, not otherwise provided for, $133,302,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That no funds
shall be available for the site acquisition, design, or
construction of any Border Patrol checkpoint in the Tucson
sector.
Federal Prison System
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the administration, operation,
and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional
institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 707, of which
600 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and
passenger motor vehicles, and for the provision of technical
assistance and advice on corrections related issues to
foreign governments, $3,476,889,000: Provided, That the
Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and
Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for
direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief
for inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions:
Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison
System (FPS), where necessary, may enter into contracts with
a fiscal agent/fiscal intermediary claims processor to
determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of
FPS, furnish health services to individuals committed to the
custody of FPS: Provided further, That not to exceed $6,000
shall be available for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided further, That not to exceed $90,000,000
shall remain available for necessary operations until
September 30, 2002: Provided further, That, of the amounts
provided for Contract Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000
shall remain available until expended to make payments in
advance for grants, contracts and reimbursable agreements,
and other expenses authorized by section 501(c) of the
Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, as amended, for the
care and security in the United States of Cuban and Haitian
entrants: Provided further, That the Director of the Federal
Prison System may accept donated property and services
relating to the operation of the prison card program from a
not-for-profit entity which has operated such program in the
past notwithstanding the fact that such not-for-profit entity
furnishes services under contracts to the Federal Prison
System relating to the operation of pre-release services,
halfway houses or other custodial facilities.
Buildings and Facilities
For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new
facilities; purchase and acquisition of facilities and
remodeling, and equipping of such facilities for penal and
correctional use, including all necessary expenses incident
thereto, by contract or force account; and constructing,
remodeling, and equipping necessary buildings and facilities
at existing penal and correctional institutions, including
all necessary expenses incident thereto, by contract or force
account, $835,660,000, to remain available until expended, of
which not to exceed $14,000,000 shall be available to
construct areas for inmate work programs: Provided, That
labor of United States prisoners may be used for work
performed under this appropriation: Provided further, That
not to exceed 10 percent of the funds appropriated to
``Buildings and Facilities'' in this or any other Act may be
transferred to ``Salaries and Expenses'', Federal Prison
System, upon notification by the Attorney General to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate in compliance with provisions set forth in
section 605 of this Act.
federal prison industries, incorporated
The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with
the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without
regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104
of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in
carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the
current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase
of (not to exceed five for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries,
incorporated
Not to exceed $3,429,000 of the funds of the corporation
shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an
accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the
corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such
amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of
claims, and expenditures which the said accounting system
requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities
acquired or produced, including selling and shipping
expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition,
construction, operation, maintenance, improvement,
protection, or disposition of facilities and other property
belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.
Office of Justice Programs
justice assistance
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''),
and the Missing Children's Assistance Act, as amended,
including salaries and expenses in connection therewith, and
with the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, as amended,
$197,239,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized by section 1001 of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by Public
Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524).
In addition, for grants, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by sections 821 and 822 of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and for
other counterterrorism programs, $220,980,000, to remain
available until expended.
state and local law enforcement assistance
For assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), as amended
(``the 1994 Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, as amended (``the 1968 Act''); and the
Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, as amended (``the 1990
Act''), $2,848,929,000 (including amounts for administrative
costs, which shall be transferred to and merged with the
``Justice Assistance'' account), to remain available until
expended as follows:
(1) $523,000,000 for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants,
pursuant to H.R. 728 as passed by the House of
Representatives on February 14, 1995, except that for
purposes of this Act, Guam shall be considered a ``State'',
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall be considered a ``unit
of local government'' as well as a ``State'', for the
purposes set forth in paragraphs (A), (B), (D), (F), and (I)
of section 101(a)(2) of H.R. 728 and for establishing crime
prevention programs involving cooperation between community
residents and law enforcement personnel in order to control,
detect, or investigate crime or the prosecution of criminals:
Provided, That no funds provided under this heading may be
used as matching funds for any other Federal grant program,
of which:
(a) $60,000,000 shall be for Boys and Girls Clubs in public
housing facilities and other areas in cooperation with State
and local law enforcement: Provided, That funds may also be
used to defray the costs of indemnification insurance for law
enforcement officers, and
(b) $20,000,000 shall be available to carry out section
102(2) of H.R. 728;
(2) $400,000,000 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program, as authorized by section 242(j) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as amended;
(3) $686,500,000 for Violent Offender Incarceration and
Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants pursuant to subtitle A
of title II of the 1994 Act, of which:
(a) $165,000,000 shall be available for payments to States
for incarceration of criminal aliens,
(b) $35,000,000 shall be available for the Cooperative
Agreement Program,
(c) $34,000,000 shall be reserved by the Attorney General
for fiscal year 2001 under section 20109(a) of subtitle A of
title II of the 1994 Act, and
(d) $2,000,000 shall be for the review of State
environmental impact statements;
(4) $8,000,000 for the Tribal Courts Initiative;
(5) $569,050,000 for programs authorized by part E of title
I of the 1968 Act, notwithstanding the provisions of section
511 of said Act, of which $69,050,000 shall be for
discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs;
(6) $11,500,000 for the Court Appointed Special Advocate
Program, as authorized by section 218 of the 1990 Act;
(7) $2,000,000 for Child Abuse Training Programs for
Judicial Personnel and Practitioners, as authorized by
section 224 of the 1990 Act;
(8) $210,179,000 for Grants to Combat Violence Against
Women, to States, units of local government, and Indian
tribal governments, as authorized by section 1001(a)(18) of
the 1968 Act, of which:
(a) $31,625,000 shall be used exclusively for the purpose
of strengthening civil legal assistance programs for victims
of domestic violence,
(b) $5,200,000 shall be for the National Institute of
Justice for research and evaluation of violence against
women,
(c) $10,000,000 shall be for the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention for the Safe Start Program, to be
administered as authorized by part C of the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Act of 1974, as amended, and
(d) $11,000,000 shall be used exclusively for violence on
college campuses;
(9) $34,000,000 for Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies to
States, units of local government, and Indian tribal
governments, as authorized by section 1001(a)(19) of the 1968
Act;
(10) $25,000,000 for Rural Domestic Violence and Child
Abuse Enforcement Assistance Grants, as authorized by section
40295 of the 1994 Act;
(11) $5,000,000 for training programs to assist probation
and parole officers who work with released sex offenders, as
authorized by section 40152(c) of the 1994 Act, and for local
demonstration projects;
(12) $1,000,000 for grants for televised testimony, as
authorized by section 1001(a)(7) of the 1968 Act;
(13) $63,000,000 for grants for residential substance abuse
treatment for State prisoners, as authorized by section
1001(a)(17) of the 1968 Act;
(14) $5,000,000 for demonstration grants on alcohol and
crime in Indian Country;
(15) $900,000 for the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient
Alert Program, as authorized by section 240001(c) of the 1994
Act;
(16) $50,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by title V
of the 1994 Act;
(17) $1,500,000 for Law Enforcement Family Support
Programs, as authorized by section 1001(a)(21) of the 1968
Act;
(18) $2,000,000 for public awareness programs addressing
marketing scams aimed at senior citizens, as authorized by
section 250005(3) of the 1994 Act;
[[Page 24615]]
(19) $250,000,000 for Juvenile Accountability Incentive
Block Grants (of which $500,000 shall be used to construct a
treatment and security facility for mid-risk youth in
Southwest Colorado) except that such funds shall be subject
to the same terms and conditions as set forth in the
provisions under this heading for this program in Public Law
105-119, but all references in such provisions to 1998 shall
be deemed to refer instead to 2001, and Guam shall be
considered a ``State'' for the purposes of title III of H.R.
3, as passed by the House of Representatives on May 8, 1997;
and
(20) $1,300,000 for Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Programs, as authorized by section 220002(h) of the 1994 Act:
Provided further, That funds made available in fiscal year
2001 under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the 1968 Act may
be obligated for programs to assist States in the litigation
processing of death penalty Federal habeas corpus petitions
and for drug testing initiatives: Provided further, That, if
a unit of local government uses any of the funds made
available under this title to increase the number of law
enforcement officers, the unit of local government will
achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement officers
who perform nonadministrative public safety service: Provided
further, That balances for these programs may be transferred
from the Violent Crime Reduction Programs, State and Local
Law Enforcement Assistance account to this account.
weed and seed program fund
For necessary expenses, including salaries and related
expenses of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, to
implement ``Weed and Seed'' program activities, $34,000,000,
to remain available until expended, for inter-governmental
agreements, including grants, cooperative agreements, and
contracts, with State and local law enforcement agencies,
non-profit organizations, and agencies of local government,
engaged in the investigation and prosecution of violent
crimes and drug offenses in ``Weed and Seed'' designated
communities, and for either reimbursements or transfers to
appropriation accounts of the Department of Justice and other
Federal agencies which shall be specified by the Attorney
General to execute the ``Weed and Seed'' program strategy:
Provided, That funds designated by Congress through language
for other Department of Justice appropriation accounts for
``Weed and Seed'' program activities shall be managed and
executed by the Attorney General through the Executive Office
for Weed and Seed: Provided further, That the Attorney
General may direct the use of other Department of Justice
funds and personnel in support of ``Weed and Seed'' program
activities only after the Attorney General notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
Community Oriented Policing Services
For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322 (``the 1994
Act'') (including administrative costs), $1,032,325,000, to
remain available until expended; of which $130,000,000 shall
be available to the Office of Justice Programs to carry out
section 102 of the Crime Identification Technology Act of
1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601), of which $35,000,000 is for grants to
upgrade criminal records, as authorized by section 106(b) of
the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, as
amended, and section 4(b) of the National Child Protection
Act of 1993, of which $17,500,000 is for the National
Institute of Justice to develop school safety technologies,
and of which $30,000,000 shall be for State and local DNA
laboratories as authorized by section 1001(a)(22) of the 1968
Act, as well as for improvements to the State and local
forensic laboratory general forensic science capabilities to
reduce States' DNA convicted offender sample backlog and for
awards to State, local, and private laboratories; of which
$566,825,000 is for Public Safety and Community Policing
Grants pursuant to title I of the 1994 Act, of which
$180,000,000 shall be available for school resource officers,
of which $35,000,000 shall be used to improve tribal law
enforcement including equipment and training, of which
$25,500,000 shall be used for the Matching Grant Program for
Law Enforcement Armor Vests pursuant to section 2501 of part
Y of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(``the 1968 Act''), as amended, of which $29,500,000 shall be
used for Police Corps education, training, and service as set
forth in sections 200101-200113 of the 1994 Act, and of which
$15,000,000 shall be used to combat violence in schools; of
which $140,000,000 shall be used for a law enforcement
technology program; of which $48,500,000 shall be used for
policing initiatives to combat methamphetamine production and
trafficking and to enhance policing initiatives in drug ``hot
spots''; of which $75,000,000 shall be for grants to States
and units of local government for a Community Prosecution
Program in areas of high gun-related violent crime to address
gun-related violence and violations of gun statutes in cases
involving drug-trafficking or gang-related crime; of which
$25,000,000 shall be used for the Community Prosecutors
program; of which $17,000,000 shall be for a police integrity
program; and of which $30,000,000 shall be for an offender
re-entry program: Provided, That of the amount provided for
Public Safety and Community Policing Grants, not to exceed
$31,825,000 shall be expended for program management and
administration: Provided further, That of the unobligated
balances available in this program, $5,000,000 shall be
available to improve tribal law enforcement including
equipment and training: Provided further, That no funds that
become available as a result of deobligations from prior year
balances, excluding those for program management and
administration, may be obligated except in accordance with
section 605 of this Act.
Juvenile Justice Programs
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, (``the Act''), including
salaries and expenses in connection therewith to be
transferred to and merged with the appropriations for Justice
Assistance, $279,097,000, to remain available until expended,
as authorized by section 299 of part I of title II and
section 506 of title V of the Act, as amended by Public Law
102-586, of which: (1) notwithstanding any other provision of
law, $6,847,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by
part A of title II of the Act, $89,000,000 shall be available
for expenses authorized by part B of title II of the Act, and
$50,250,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by
part C of title II of the Act: Provided, That $26,500,000 of
the amounts provided for part B of title II of the Act, as
amended, is for the purpose of providing additional formula
grants under part B to States that provide assurances to the
Administrator that the State has in effect (or will have in
effect no later than 1 year after date of application)
policies and programs, that ensure that juveniles are subject
to accountability-based sanctions for every act for which
they are adjudicated delinquent; (2) $12,000,000 shall be
available for expenses authorized by sections 281 and 282 of
part D of title II of the Act for prevention and treatment
programs relating to juvenile gangs; (3) $10,000,000 shall be
available for expenses authorized by section 285 of part E of
title II of the Act; (4) $16,000,000 shall be available for
expenses authorized by part G of title II of the Act for
juvenile mentoring programs; and (5) $95,000,000 shall be
available for expenses authorized by title V of the Act for
incentive grants for local delinquency prevention programs;
of which $12,500,000 shall be for delinquency prevention,
control, and system improvement programs for tribal youth; of
which $25,000,000 shall be available for grants of $360,000
to each State and $6,640,000 shall be available for
discretionary grants to States, for programs and activities
to enforce State laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic
beverages to minors or the purchase or consumption of
alcoholic beverages by minors, prevention and reduction of
consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors, and for
technical assistance and training; and of which $15,000,000
shall be available for the Safe Schools Initiative: Provided
further, That upon the enactment of reauthorization
legislation for Juvenile Justice Programs under the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended,
funding provisions in this Act shall from that date be
subject to the provisions of that legislation and any
provisions in this Act that are inconsistent with that
legislation shall no longer have effect: Provided further,
That of amounts made available under the Juvenile Justice
Programs of the Office of Justice Programs to carry out part
B (relating to Federal Assistance for State and Local
Programs), subpart II of part C (relating to Special Emphasis
Prevention and Treatment Programs), part D (relating to Gang-
Free Schools and Communities and Community-Based Gang
Intervention), part E (relating to State Challenge
Activities), and part G (relating to Mentoring) of title II
of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974, and to carry out the At-Risk Children's Program under
title V of that Act, not more than 10 percent of each such
amount may be used for research, evaluation, and statistics
activities designed to benefit the programs or activities
authorized under the appropriate part or title, and not more
than 2 percent of each such amount may be used for training
and technical assistance activities designed to benefit the
programs or activities authorized under that part or title.
In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements,
and other assistance, $11,000,000 to remain available until
expended, for developing, testing, and demonstrating programs
designed to reduce drug use among juveniles.
In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements,
and other assistance authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990, as amended, $8,500,000, to remain available
until expended, as authorized by section 214B of the Act.
Public Safety Officers Benefits
To remain available until expended, for payments authorized
by part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796), as amended, such sums
as are necessary, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law
100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340); and $2,400,000, to remain
available until expended for payments as authorized by
section 1201(b) of said Act.
General Provisions--Department of Justice
Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this title for official reception and representation
expenses, a total of not to exceed $45,000 from funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall
be available to the Attorney General for official reception
and representation expenses in accordance with distributions,
procedures, and regulations established by the Attorney
General.
Sec. 102. Hereafter, authorities contained in the
Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, Fiscal
Year 1980 (Public Law 96-132; 93 Stat. 1040 (1979)), as
amended, shall
[[Page 24616]]
remain in effect until the effective date of a subsequent
Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act.
Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That
should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null
and void.
Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate
in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 105. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the
obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect
of section 104 intended to address the philosophical beliefs
of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not
to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to establish and publicize a program under which
publicly advertised, extraordinary rewards may be paid, which
shall not be subject to spending limitations contained in
sections 3059 and 3072 of title 18, United States Code:
Provided, That any reward of $100,000 or more, up to a
maximum of $2,000,000, may not be made without the personal
approval of the President or the Attorney General and such
approval may not be delegated.
Sec. 107. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Justice in this Act, including those derived from the Violent
Crime Reduction Trust Fund, may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 108. Section 108(a) of the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section
1000(a)(1) of Public Law 106-113) shall apply for fiscal year
2001 and thereafter.
Sec. 109. Section 3024 of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 106-31) shall apply for
fiscal year 2001.
Sec. 110. Section 641(e)(4)(A) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C
of Public Law 104-208) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end of the second sentence the following: ``,
except that, in the case of an alien admitted under section
101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as an au
pair, camp counselor, or participant in a summer work travel
program, the fee shall not exceed $35''.
Sec. 111. Section 115 of the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000 (as enacted into law by section
1000(a)(1) of Public Law 106-113) shall apply hereafter.
Sec. 112. Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1356) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsections:
``(t) Genealogy Fee.--(1) There is hereby established the
Genealogy Fee for providing genealogy research and
information services. This fee shall be deposited as
offsetting collections into the Examinations Fee Account.
Fees for such research and information services may be set at
a level that will ensure the recovery of the full costs of
providing all such services.
``(2) The Attorney General will prepare and submit annually
to Congress statements of the financial condition of the
Genealogy Fee.
``(3) Any officer or employee of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service shall collect fees prescribed under
regulation before disseminating any requested genealogical
information.
``(u) Premium Fee for Employment-Based Petitions and
Applications.--The Attorney General is authorized to
establish and collect a premium fee for employment-based
petitions and applications. This fee shall be used to provide
certain premium-processing services to business customers,
and to make infrastructure improvements in the adjudications
and customer-service processes. For approval of the benefit
applied for, the petitioner/applicant must meet the legal
criteria for such benefit. This fee shall be set at $1,000,
shall be paid in addition to any normal petition/application
fee that may be applicable, and shall be deposited as
offsetting collections in the Immigration Examinations Fee
Account. The Attorney General may adjust this fee according
to the Consumer Price Index.''.
Sec. 114. Section 1402(d)(3) of Public Law 98-473 is
amended by inserting ``and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation'' after ``United States Attorneys Offices''.
Sec. 115. Beginning in fiscal year 2001 and thereafter,
funds appropriated to the Federal Prison System may be used
to place in privately operated prisons only such persons
sentenced to incarceration under the District of Columbia
Code as the Director, Bureau of Prisons, may determine to be
appropriate for such placement consistent with Federal
classification standards, after consideration of all relevant
factors, including the threat of danger to public safety.
Sec. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
$1,000,000 shall be available for technical assistance from
the funds appropriated for part G of title II of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended.
Sec. 117. Of the discretionary funds appropriated to the
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Program in fiscal year 2000, $2,000,000 shall be
transferred to the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth
In Sentencing Incentive Grants Program to be used for the
construction costs of the Hoonah Spirit Camp, as authorized
under section 20109(a) of subtitle A of title II of the 1994
Act.
Sec. 118. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
fiscal 2001 and hereafter, with respect to any grant program
for which amounts are made available under this title, no
grant funds may be made available to any local jail that runs
``pay-to-stay programs.''
Sec. 119. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
including section 4(d) of the Service Contract Act of 1965
(41 U.S.C. 353(d)), the Attorney General hereafter may enter
into contracts and other agreements, of any reasonable
duration, for detention or incarceration space or facilities,
including related services, on any reasonable basis.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 2001''.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES
Trade and Infrastructure Development
RELATED AGENCIES
Office of the United States Trade Representative
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $29,517,000, of which $1,000,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to
exceed $98,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses.
International Trade Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$48,100,000, to remain available until expended.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
operations and administration
For necessary expenses for international trade activities
of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and
engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including
expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose
of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard
to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for
dependent members of immediate families of employees
stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas;
travel and transportation of employees of the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad,
without regard to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and
aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad for
periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of alteration,
repair, or improvement; purchase or construction of temporary
demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of
tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph
of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per vehicle;
obtaining insurance on official motor vehicles; and rental of
tie lines and teletype equipment, $337,444,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $3,000,000 is to be
derived from fees to be retained and used by the
International Trade Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302: Provided, That $64,747,000 shall be for Trade
Development, $25,555,000 shall be for Market Access and
Compliance, $40,645,000 shall be for the Import
Administration, $194,638,000 shall be for the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service, and $11,859,000 shall be for
Executive Direction and Administration: Provided further,
That the provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f)
and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c))
shall apply in carrying out these activities without regard
to section 5412 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act
of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and that for the purpose of this
Act, contributions under the provisions of the Mutual
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act shall include payment
for assessments for services provided as part of these
activities.
Export Administration
operations and administration
For necessary expenses for export administration and
national security activities of the Department of Commerce,
including costs associated with the performance of export
administration field activities both domestically and abroad;
full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate
families of employees stationed overseas; employment of
Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment
of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first
paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers
[[Page 24617]]
under the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as
authorized by 22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for official use and motor vehicles for law
enforcement use with special requirement vehicles eligible
for purchase without regard to any price limitation otherwise
established by law, $64,854,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $7,250,000 shall be for inspections and
other activities related to national security: Provided, That
the provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and
all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall
apply in carrying out these activities: Provided further,
That payments and contributions collected and accepted for
materials or services provided as part of such activities may
be retained for use in covering the cost of such activities,
and for providing information to the public with respect to
the export administration and national security activities of
the Department of Commerce and other export control programs
of the United States and other governments.
Economic Development Administration
Economic Development Assistance Programs
For grants for economic development assistance as provided
by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as
amended, and for trade adjustment assistance, $411,879,000,
to remain available until expended.
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of administering the economic
development assistance programs as provided for by law,
$28,000,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to
monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public
Works Employment Act of 1976, as amended, title II of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and the Community Emergency
Drought Relief Act of 1977.
Minority Business Development Agency
Minority Business Development
For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in
fostering, promoting, and developing minority business
enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and
other agreements with public or private organizations,
$27,314,000.
Economic and Information Infrastructure
Economic and Statistical Analysis
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic
and statistical analysis programs of the Department of
Commerce, $53,745,000, to remain available until September
30, 2002.
Bureau of the Census
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling,
analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for
by law, $157,227,000.
Periodic Censuses and Programs
For necessary expenses to conduct the decennial census,
$130,898,000 to remain available until expended: Provided,
That, of the total amount available for the decennial census
($130,898,000 in new appropriations and $260,000,000 in
unobligated balances from prior years), $24,055,000 is for
Program Development and Management; $55,096,000 is for Data
Content and Products; $122,000,000 is for Field Data
Collection and Support Systems; $1,500,000 is for Address
List Development; $115,038,000 is for Automated Data
Processing and Telecommunications Support; $55,000,000 is for
Testing and Evaluation; $5,512,000 is for activities related
to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Pacific Areas;
$9,197,000 is for Marketing, Communications and Partnership
activities; and $3,500,000 is for the Census Monitoring
Board, as authorized by section 210 of Public Law 105-119.
In addition, for expenses to collect and publish statistics
for other periodic censuses and programs provided for by law,
$145,508,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That regarding engineering and design of a facility at the
Suitland Federal Center, quarterly reports regarding the
expenditure of funds and project planning, design and cost
decisions shall be provided by the Bureau, in cooperation
with the General Services Administration, to the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this Act or any other Act under the heading
``Bureau of the Census, Periodic Censuses and Programs''
shall be used to fund the construction and tenant build-out
costs of a facility at the Suitland Federal Center.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), $11,437,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the
Secretary of Commerce shall charge Federal agencies for costs
incurred in spectrum management, analysis, and operations,
and related services and such fees shall be retained and used
as offsetting collections for costs of such spectrum
services, to remain available until expended: Provided
further, That hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, NTIA shall not authorize spectrum use or provide any
spectrum functions pursuant to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
Organization Act, 47 U.S.C. 902-903, to any Federal entity
without reimbursement as required by NTIA for such spectrum
management costs, and Federal entities withholding payment of
such cost shall not use spectrum: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Commerce is authorized to retain and use as
offsetting collections all funds transferred, or previously
transferred, from other Government agencies for all costs
incurred in telecommunications research, engineering, and
related activities by the Institute for Telecommunication
Sciences of NTIA, in furtherance of its assigned functions
under this paragraph, and such funds received from other
Government agencies shall remain available until expended.
public telecommunications facilities, planning and construction
For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, $43,500,000, to remain available
until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as
amended: Provided, That not to exceed $1,800,000 shall be
available for program administration as authorized by section
391 of the Act: Provided further, That notwithstanding the
provisions of section 391 of the Act, the prior year
unobligated balances may be made available for grants for
projects for which applications have been submitted and
approved during any fiscal year.
information infrastructure grants
For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, $45,500,000, to remain available
until expended as authorized by section 391 of the Act, as
amended: Provided, That not to exceed $3,000,000 shall be
available for program administration and other support
activities as authorized by section 391: Provided further,
That, of the funds appropriated herein, not to exceed 5
percent may be available for telecommunications research
activities for projects related directly to the development
of a national information infrastructure: Provided further,
That, notwithstanding the requirements of sections 392(a) and
392(c) of the Act, these funds may be used for the planning
and construction of telecommunications networks for the
provision of educational, cultural, health care, public
information, public safety, or other social services:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no entity that receives telecommunications services at
preferential rates under section 254(h) of the Act (47 U.S.C.
254(h)) or receives assistance under the regional information
sharing systems grant program of the Department of Justice
under part M of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) may use funds under a
grant under this heading to cover any costs of the entity
that would otherwise be covered by such preferential rates or
such assistance, as the case may be: Provided further, That
the Administrator shall, after consultation with other
federal departments and agencies responsible for regulating
the core operations of entities engaged in the provision of
energy, water and railroad services, complete and submit to
Congress, not later than twelve months after date of
enactment of this subsection, a study of the current and
future use of spectrum by these entities to protect and
maintain the nation's critical infrastructure: Provided
further, That within six months after the release of this
study, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
shall submit a report to Congress on the actions that could
be taken by the Commission to address any needs identified in
the Administrator's study.
Patent and Trademark Office
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office
provided for by law, including defense of suits instituted
against the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks,
$783,843,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That of this amount, $783,843,000 shall be derived from
offsetting collections assessed and collected pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376, and shall be retained
and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the
general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections
are received during fiscal year 2001, so as to result in a
final fiscal year 2001 appropriation from the general fund
estimated at $0: Provided further, That during fiscal year
2001, should the total amount of offsetting fee collections
be less than $783,843,000, the total amounts available to the
Patent and Trademark Office shall be reduced accordingly:
Provided further, That any amount received in excess of
$783,843,000 in fiscal year 2001 shall not be available for
obligation: Provided further, That not to exceed $254,889,000
from fees collected in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 shall be
made available for obligation in fiscal year 2001.
Science and Technology
Technology Administration
Under Secretary for Technology/Office of Technology Policy
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for
Technology/Office of Technology Policy, $8,080,000.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Scientific and Technical Research and Services
For necessary expenses of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, $312,617,000, to remain available
until expended, of which not to exceed $282,000 may be
transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.
industrial technology services
For necessary expenses of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership of the National Institute
[[Page 24618]]
of Standards and Technology, $105,137,000, to remain
available until expended.
In addition, for necessary expenses of the Advanced
Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, $145,700,000, to remain available until expended,
of which not to exceed $60,700,000 shall be available for the
award of new grants.
construction of research facilities
For construction of new research facilities, including
architectural and engineering design, and for renovation of
existing facilities, not otherwise provided for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, as authorized by 15
U.S.C. 278c-278e, $34,879,000, to remain available until
expended.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
operations, research, and facilities
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft;
grants, contracts, or other payments to nonprofit
organizations for the purposes of conducting activities
pursuant to cooperative agreements; and relocation of
facilities as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 883i, $1,869,170,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That fees and
donations received by the National Ocean Service for the
management of the national marine sanctuaries may be retained
and used for the salaries and expenses associated with those
activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further,
That in addition, $68,000,000 shall be derived by transfer
from the fund entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products
and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'': Provided
further, That grants to States pursuant to sections 306 and
306A of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
shall not exceed $2,000,000: Provided further, That not to
exceed $31,439,000 shall be expended for Executive Direction
and Administration, which consists of the Offices of the
Undersecretary, the Executive Secretariat, Policy and
Strategic Planning, International Affairs, Legislative
Affairs, Public Affairs, Sustainable Development, the Chief
Scientist, and the General Counsel: Provided further, That
the aforementioned offices, excluding the Office of the
General Counsel, shall not be augmented by personnel details,
temporary transfers of personnel on either a reimbursable or
nonreimbursable basis or any other type of formal or informal
transfer or reimbursement of personnel or funds on either a
temporary or long-term basis above the level of 42 personnel:
Provided further, That no general administrative charge shall
be applied against an assigned activity included in this Act
and, further, that any direct administrative expenses applied
against an assigned activity shall be limited to 5 percent of
the funds provided for that assigned activity: Provided
further, That any use of deobligated balances of funds
provided under this heading in previous years shall be
subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this
Act.
In addition, for necessary retired pay expenses under the
Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits
Plan, and for payments for medical care of retired personnel
and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act
(10 U.S.C. ch. 55), such sums as may be necessary.
Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (including transfers of
funds)
For procurement, acquisition and construction of capital
assets, including alteration and modification costs, of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
$682,899,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That unexpended balances of amounts previously made available
in the ``Operations, Research, and Facilities'' account for
activities funded under this heading may be transferred to
and merged with this account, to remain available until
expended for the purposes for which the funds were originally
appropriated: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this Act or any other Act under the heading
``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Procurement, Acquisition and Construction'' shall be used to
fund the construction and tenant build-out costs of a
facility at the Suitland Federal Center.
Coastal and Ocean Activities
In addition, for coastal and ocean activities,
$420,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$135,000,000 is for ocean, coastal and waterway conservation
programs; of which $135,000,000 is for National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration programs; and of which
$150,000,000 is for coastal impact assistance as authorized
by section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act as
authorized by section 903 of this Act: Provided, That of the
funds provided under this heading for ocean and coastal
conservation programs, $10,000,000 is available for
implementation of State nonpoint pollution control plans
established pursuant to section 6217 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 as amended by P.L. 101-508 other than
in non-contiguous States except Hawaii; $30,000,000 is for
competitive grants for community-based coastal restoration
activities in the Great Lakes region; $14,000,000 is for the
University of New Hampshire, Building and Pier; $1,000,000 is
for the Sea Coast Science Center; $3,000,000 is for the Great
Bay Partnership; $1,000,000 is for the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services Marsh Restoration
initiative; $1,000,000 is for the Mississippi Laboratories at
Pascagoula; $8,000,000 is for the ACE Basin NERRS Research
Center construction; $4,000,000 is for Kachamek Bay NERRS
research center construction; $1,000,000 is for the Raritan,
New Jersey, NERRS land acquisition; $2,500,000 is for Winyah
Bay land acquisition; $2,000,000 is for ACE Basin Land
Acquisition; $10,000,000 is for a direct payment to the
SeaLife Center; $10,000,000 is for Dupage River restoration;
$1,000,000 is for Detroit River restoration; $500,000 is for
lower Rouge River restoration; $8,500,000 is for Bronx River
restoration and land acquisition; $16,000,000 is for a grant
for Eastern Kentucky Pride, Inc, of which $11,000,000 is for
design and construction of facilities for water protection
and related environmental infrastructure; $3,000,000 is for a
grant to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources for
brown marsh research/mitigation and nutria control;
$2,000,000 is for land acquisition in southern Orange County,
California for conservation of coastal sage scrub; $3,000,000
is for planning, renovation and construction of facilities
for a new national estuarine research reserve in San
Francisco, California; $2,000,000 is for a grant to the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for species management
and estuarine habitat conservation; and $1,500,000 is for a
grant to the Pinellas County Environmental Foundation for the
Tampa Bay watershed Provided further, That of the funds
provided for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration programs, $5,000,000 is for National Estuarine
Research Reserves operations; $12,000,000 is for Marine
Sanctuaries operations; $8,500,000 is for Coastal Zone
Management Act grants; $1,500,000 is for Program
Administration; $4,000,000 is for marine mammal strandings;
$25,000,000 is for protection of Coral Reefs; $36,000,000 is
for Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery grants to States and
tribes; $6,000,000 is for fisheries habitat restoration;
$15,000,000 is for NOAA Cooperative Enforcement initiative;
$3,000,000 is for Atlantic Coast observers; $3,000,000 is for
Cooperative Research; $3,000,000 is for Red Snapper research;
$3,000,000 is for Aquaculture; $5,000,000 is for Harmful
algal Blooms research; $2,000,000 is for Ocean exploration
initiative; and $3,000,000 is for Marine Sanctuaries
construction.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of
Pacific salmon populations and the implementation of the 1999
Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement between the United States and
Canada, $54,000,000, subject to express authorization.
In addition, for implementation of the 1999 Pacific Salmon
Treaty Agreement, $20,000,000, of which $10,000,000 shall be
deposited in the Northern Boundary and Transboundary Rivers
Restoration and Enhancement Fund and of which $10,000,000
shall be deposited in the Southern Boundary Restoration and
Enhancement Fund.
coastal zone management fund
Of amounts collected pursuant to section 308 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456a), not to exceed
$3,200,000, for purposes set forth in sections 308(b)(2)(A),
308(b)(2)(B)(v), and 315(e) of such Act.
Fishermen's Contingency Fund
For carrying out the provisions of title IV of Public Law
95-372, not to exceed $952,000, to be derived from receipts
collected pursuant to that Act, to remain available until
expended.
foreign fishing observer fund
For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, as amended (Public Law
96-339), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976, as amended (Public Law 100-627), and
the American Fisheries Promotion Act (Public Law 96-561), to
be derived from the fees imposed under the foreign fishery
observer program authorized by these Acts, not to exceed
$191,000, to remain available until expended.
fisheries finance program account
For the cost of direct loans, $288,000, as authorized by
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended: Provided, That
such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available under this heading may be used for direct loans for
any new fishing vessel that will increase the harvesting
capacity in any United States fishery.
Departmental Management
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the departmental management of
the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not
to exceed $3,000 for official entertainment, $35,920,000.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11, as amended by Public
Law 100-504), $20,000,000.
General Provisions--Department of Commerce
Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable
appropriations and funds made available to the Department of
Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities
specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to
the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced
payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification
of officials designated by the Secretary of Commerce that
such payments are in the public interest.
Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
made available to the Department
[[Page 24619]]
of Commerce by this Act for salaries and expenses shall be
available for hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized
by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms or allowances therefore, as
authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 203. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to support the hurricane reconnaissance aircraft and
activities that are under the control of the United States
Air Force or the United States Air Force Reserve.
Sec. 204. None of the funds provided in this or any
previous Act, or hereinafter made available to the Department
of Commerce, shall be available to reimburse the Unemployment
Trust Fund or any other fund or account of the Treasury to
pay for any expenses authorized by section 8501 of title 5,
United States Code, for services performed by individuals
appointed to temporary positions within the Bureau of the
Census for purposes relating to the decennial censuses of
population.
Sec. 205. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That
any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 206. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this title resulting from personnel actions
taken in response to funding reductions included in this
title or from actions taken for the care and protection of
loan collateral or grant property shall be absorbed within
the total budgetary resources available to such department or
agency: Provided, That the authority to transfer funds
between appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry
out this section is provided in addition to authorities
included elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of
funds to carry out this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 207. The Secretary of Commerce may award contracts for
hydrographic, geodetic, and photogrammetric surveying and
mapping services in accordance with title IX of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
541 et seq.).
Sec. 208. The Secretary of Commerce may use the Commerce
franchise fund for expenses and equipment necessary for the
maintenance and operation of such administrative services as
the Secretary determines may be performed more advantageously
as central services, pursuant to section 403 of Public Law
103-356: Provided, That any inventories, equipment, and other
assets pertaining to the services to be provided by such
fund, either on hand or on order, less the related
liabilities or unpaid obligations, and any appropriations
made for the purpose of providing capital shall be used to
capitalize such fund: Provided further, That such fund shall
be paid in advance from funds available to the Department and
other Federal agencies for which such centralized services
are performed, at rates which will return in full all
expenses of operation, including accrued leave, depreciation
of fund plant and equipment, amortization of automated data
processing (ADP) software and systems (either acquired or
donated), and an amount necessary to maintain a reasonable
operating reserve, as determined by the Secretary: Provided
further, That such fund shall provide services on a
competitive basis: Provided further, That an amount not to
exceed 4 percent of the total annual income to such fund may
be retained in the fund for fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal
year thereafter, to remain available until expended, to be
used for the acquisition of capital equipment, and for the
improvement and implementation of department financial
management, ADP, and other support systems: Provided further,
That such amounts retained in the fund for fiscal year 2001
and each fiscal year thereafter shall be available for
obligation and expenditure only in accordance with section
605 of this Act: Provided further, That no later than 30 days
after the end of each fiscal year, amounts in excess of this
reserve limitation shall be deposited as miscellaneous
receipts in the Treasury: Provided further, That such
franchise fund pilot program shall terminate pursuant to
section 403(f) of Public Law 103-356.
Sec. 209. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the amounts made available elsewhere in this title to the
``National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Construction of Research Facilities'', $4,000,000 is
appropriated to the Institute at Saint Anselm College,
$4,000,000 is appropriated to fund a cooperative agreement
with the Medical University of South Carolina, $3,000,000 is
appropriated to the Thayer School of Engineering for the
biocommodity and biomass research initiative, and $3,000,000
is appropriated to establish the Institute for Information
Infrastructure Protection at the Institute for Security
Technology Studies.
In addition, of the amounts for ``National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Procurement, Acquisition, and
Construction'', $5,000,000 shall be for a grant for Eastern
Kentucky Pride, Inc., for design and construction of
facilities for water protection and related environmental
infrastructure.
Sec. 210. (a) The Secretary of Commerce shall establish and
administer through the National Ocean Service the Dr. Nancy
Foster Scholarship Program. Under the program, the Secretary
shall award graduate education scholarships in marine
biology, oceanography, or maritime archaeology, including the
curation, preservation, and display of maritime artifacts, to
be known as ``Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarships''.
(b) The purpose of the Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program
is to recognize outstanding scholarship in marine biology,
oceanography, or maritime archaeology, particularly by women
and members of minority groups, and encourage independent
graduate level research in such fields of study.
(c) Each Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship award--
(1) shall be used to support a candidate's graduate studies
in marine biology, oceanography, or maritime archaeology at a
sponsoring institution; and
(2) shall be made available to individual candidates in
accordance with guidelines issued by the Secretary.
(d) The amount of each Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship shall
be provided directly to each recipient selected by the
Secretary upon receipt of certification that the recipient
will adhere to a specific and detailed plan of study and
research approved by the sponsoring institution.
(e) The Secretary shall make 1 percent of the amount
appropriated each fiscal year to carry out the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act (46 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) available for
Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarships.
(f) Repayment of the award shall be made to the Secretary
in the case of fraud or noncompliance.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001''.
TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY
Supreme Court of the United States
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme
Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and
grounds, including purchase or hire, driving, maintenance,
and operation of an automobile for the Chief Justice, not to
exceed $10,000 for the purpose of transporting Associate
Justices, and hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized
by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; and for
miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice
may approve, $37,591,000.
care of the building and grounds
For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the
Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon
the Architect by the Act approved May 7, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 13a-
13b), $7,530,000, of which $4,460,000 shall remain available
until expended.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
salaries and expenses
For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers
and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as
authorized by law, $17,930,000.
United States Court of International Trade
salaries and expenses
For salaries of the chief judge and eight judges, salaries
of the officers and employees of the court, services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and necessary expenses of the
court, as authorized by law, $12,456,000.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
salaries and expenses
For the salaries of circuit and district judges (including
judges of the territorial courts of the United States),
justices and judges retired from office or from regular
active service, judges of the United States Court of Federal
Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other
officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise
specifically provided for, and necessary expenses of the
courts, as authorized by law, $3,359,725,000 (including the
purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed
$17,817,000 shall remain available until expended for space
alteration projects; and of which not to exceed $10,000,000
shall remain available until expended for furniture and
furnishings related to new space alteration and construction
projects.
In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of
Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to exceed
$2,602,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund.
defender services
For the operation of Federal Public Defender and Community
Defender organizations; the compensation and reimbursement of
expenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under
the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended; the
compensation and reimbursement of expenses of persons
furnishing investigative, expert and other services under the
Criminal Justice Act of 1964 (18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)); the
compensation (in accordance with Criminal Justice Act
maximums) and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys
appointed to assist the court in criminal cases where the
defendant has waived representation by counsel; the
compensation and reimbursement of travel expenses of
guardians ad litem acting on behalf of financially eligible
minor or incompetent offenders in connection with transfers
from the United States to
[[Page 24620]]
foreign countries with which the United States has a treaty
for the execution of penal sentences; and the compensation of
attorneys appointed to represent jurors in civil actions for
the protection of their employment, as authorized by 28
U.S.C. 1875(d), $435,000,000, to remain available until
expended as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3006A(i).
fees of jurors and commissioners
For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C.
1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of
commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to
rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28
U.S.C. Appendix Rule 71A(h)), $59,567,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the compensation of
land commissioners shall not exceed the daily equivalent of
the highest rate payable under section 5332 of title 5,
United States Code.
court security
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
incident to the procurement, installation, and maintenance of
security equipment and protective services for the United
States Courts in courtrooms and adjacent areas, including
building ingress-egress control, inspection of packages,
directed security patrols, and other similar activities as
authorized by section 1010 of the Judicial Improvement and
Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702), $199,575,000, of
which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall remain available until
expended for security systems, to be expended directly or
transferred to the United States Marshals Service, which
shall be responsible for administering elements of the
Judicial Security Program consistent with standards or
guidelines agreed to by the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts and the Attorney General.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts as authorized by law, including travel
as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1345, hire of a passenger motor
vehicle as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b), advertising and
rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, $58,340,000,
of which not to exceed $8,500 is authorized for official
reception and representation expenses.
Federal Judicial Center
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as
authorized by Public Law 90-219, $18,777,000; of which
$1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 2002,
to provide education and training to Federal court personnel;
and of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for official
reception and representation expenses.
Judicial Retirement Funds
payment to judiciary trust funds
For payment to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund, as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. 377(o), $25,700,000; to the Judicial
Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c),
$8,100,000; and to the United States Court of Federal Claims
Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l),
$1,900,000.
United States Sentencing Commission
salaries and expenses
For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the
provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code,
$9,931,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for
official reception and representation expenses.
General Provisions--The Judiciary
Sec. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this
title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be
available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 302. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in
this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, but
no such appropriation, except ``Courts of Appeals, District
Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Defender Services'' and
``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services, Fees of Jurors and Commissioners'', shall be
increased by more than 10 percent by any such transfers:
Provided, That any transfer pursuant to this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Sec. 303. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
salaries and expenses appropriation for district courts,
courts of appeals, and other judicial services shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses
of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided,
That such available funds shall not exceed $11,000 and shall
be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts in the capacity as Secretary of
the Judicial Conference.
Sec. 304. (a) The Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts (the Director) may designate in
writing officers and employees of the judicial branch of the
United States Government, including the courts as defined in
section 610 of title 28, United States Code, but excluding
the Supreme Court, to be disbursing officers in such numbers
and locations as the Director considers necessary. These
disbursing officers will: (1) disburse moneys appropriated to
the judicial branch and other funds only in strict accordance
with payment requests certified by the Director or in
accordance with subsection (b) of this section; (2) examine
payment requests as necessary to ascertain whether they are
in proper form, certified, and approved; and (3) be held
accountable as provided by law. However, a disbursing officer
will not be held accountable or responsible for any illegal,
improper, or incorrect payment resulting from any false,
inaccurate, or misleading certificate for which a certifying
officer is responsible under subsection (b) of this section.
(b)(1) The Director may designate in writing officers and
employees of the judicial branch of the United States
Government, including the courts as defined in section 610 of
title 28, United States Code, but excluding the Supreme
Court, to certify payment requests payable from
appropriations and funds. These certifying officers will be
responsible and accountable for: (A) the existence and
correctness of the facts recited in the certificate or other
request for payment or its supporting papers; (B) the
legality of the proposed payment under the appropriation or
fund involved; and (C) the correctness of the computations of
certified payment requests.
(2) The liability of a certifying officer will be enforced
in the same manner and to the same extent as provided by law
with respect to the enforcement of the liability of
disbursing and other accountable officers. A certifying
officer shall be required to make restitution to the United
States for the amount of any illegal, improper, or incorrect
payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or misleading
certificates made by the certifying officer, as well as for
any payment prohibited by law or which did not represent a
legal obligation under the appropriation or fund involved.
(c) A certifying or disbursing officer: (1) has the right
to apply for and obtain a decision by the Comptroller General
on any question of law involved in a payment request
presented for certification; and (2) is entitled to relief
from liability arising under this section as provided by law.
(d) The Director shall disburse, directly or through
officials designated pursuant to this section, appropriations
and other funds for the maintenance and operation of the
courts.
(e) Nothing in this section affects the authority of the
courts to receive or disburse moneys in accordance with
chapter 129 of title 28, United States Code.
(f) This section shall be effective for fiscal year 2001
and hereafter.
Sec. 305. District Judges for the District Courts. (a) In
General.--The President shall appoint, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate--
(1) 1 additional district judge for the district of
Arizona;
(2) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of Florida;
(3) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of
Kentucky;
(4) 1 additional district judge for the district of Nevada;
(5) 1 additional district judge for the district of New
Mexico;
(6) 1 additional district judge for the district of South
Carolina;
(7) 1 additional district judge for the southern district
of Texas;
(8) 1 additional district judge for the western district of
Texas;
(9) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of
Virginia; and
(10) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district
of Wisconsin.
(b) Table.--In order that the table contained in section
133 of title 28, United States Code, will, with respect to
each judicial district, reflect the changes in the total
number of permanent district judges authorized under
subsection (a), such table is amended--
(1) in the item relating to the district of Arizona, by
striking ``11''' and inserting ``12'';
(2) in the item relating to the southern district of
Florida, by striking ``16'' and inserting ``17'';
(3) in the item relating to the eastern district of
Kentucky, by striking ``4'' and inserting ``5'';
(4) in the item relating to the district of Nevada, by
striking ``6'' and inserting ``7'';
(5) in the item relating to the district of New Mexico, by
striking ``5'' and inserting ``6'';
(6) in the item relating to the district of South Carolina,
by striking ``9'' and inserting ``10'';
(7) in the item relating to the southern district of Texas,
by striking ``18'' and inserting ``19'';
(8) in the item relating to the western district of Texas,
by striking ``10'' and inserting ``11'';
(9) in the item relating to the eastern district of
Virginia, by striking ``9'' and inserting ``10''; and
(10) in the item relating to the eastern district of
Wisconsin, by striking ``4'' and inserting ``5''.
(c) Designation of Judge to Hold Court.--The chief judge of
the eastern district of Wisconsin shall designate 1 judge who
shall hold court for such district in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Sec. 306. Section 332 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h)(1) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit may appoint a circuit executive, who shall serve at
the pleasure of the court. In appointing a circuit executive,
the court shall take into account experience in
administrative and executive positions, familiarity with
court procedures, and special training. The circuit executive
shall exercise such administrative powers and perform such
duties as may be delegated by the court. The duties delegated
to the circuit executive may include but need not be limited
to the duties specified in subsection (e) of this section,
insofar as they are applicable to the Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit.
[[Page 24621]]
``(2) The circuit executive shall be paid the salary for
circuit executives established under subsection (f) of this
section.
``(3) The circuit executive may appoint, with the approval
of the court, necessary employees in such number as may be
approved by the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts.
``(4) The circuit executive and staff shall be deemed to be
officers and employees of the United States within the
meaning of the statutes specified in subsection (f)(4).
``(5) The court may appoint either a circuit executive
under this subsection or a clerk under section 711 of this
title, but not both, or may appoint a combined circuit
executive/clerk who shall be paid the salary of a circuit
executive.''.
Sec. 307. Section 3102(a)(1) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``and'';
(2) in subparagraph (B) by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) an office, agency, or other establishment in the
judicial branch;''.
Sec. 308. (a) Supreme Court Police Retirement.--
(1) Service deemed to be service as law enforcement
officer.--Any period of service performed before the
effective date of this section by an individual as a member
of the Supreme Court Police, who is such a member on such
date, shall be deemed to be service performed as a law
enforcement officer for purposes of chapters 83 and 84 of
title 5, United States Code. Notwithstanding any amendment
made by this section, any period of service performed before
the effective date of this section by an individual as a
member of the Supreme Court Police, who is not such a member
on such date, shall be employee service for purposes of
chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Contributions.--The Marshal of the Supreme Court of the
United States shall pay an amount determined by the Office of
Personnel Management equal to--
(A)(i) the difference between--
(I) the amount that was deducted and withheld from basic
pay under chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code,
for the period of service described in the first sentence of
paragraph (1); and
(II) the amount that should have been deducted and withheld
for such period of service, if it had instead been performed
as a law enforcement officer; and
(ii) interest as prescribed under section 8334(e) of title
5, United States Code, based on the amount determined under
clause (i); and
(B) with respect to the period of service described in
subparagraph (A), the difference between the Government
contributions that were in fact made to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund for such service, and the
amount that would have been required if such service had
instead been performed as a law enforcement officer, subject
to subsection (f).
(3) Deposit of payments.--Payments under paragraph (2)
shall be paid from the salaries and expenses account from
appropriations to the Supreme Court of the United States,
including any prior year unobligated balances, and deposited
in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
(b) Amendments to Chapter 83.--
(1) Deductions, contributions, and deposits.--Section 8334
of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``member of the
Supreme Court Police,'' after ``member of the Capitol
Police,''; and
(B) in subsection (c) in the item relating to law
enforcement officers by inserting ``, member of the Supreme
Court Police for Supreme Court Police service,'' after ``law
enforcement service''.
(2) Mandatory separation.--(A) Section 8335 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by redesignating subsection
(e) as subsection (f) and inserting after subsection (d) the
following:
``(e) A member of the Supreme Court Police who is otherwise
eligible for immediate retirement under section 8336(n) shall
be separated from the service on the last day of the month in
which such member becomes 57 years of age or completes 20
years of service if then over that age. The Marshal of the
Supreme Court of the United States, when in his judgment the
public interest so requires, may exempt such a member from
automatic separation under this subsection until that member
becomes 60 years of age. The Marshal shall notify the member
in writing of the date of separation at least 60 days in
advance thereof. Action to separate the member is not
effective, without the consent of the member, until the last
day of the month in which the 60-day notice expires.''.
(B) Section 8335(f) of title 5, United States Code, as
redesignated by subparagraph (A), is amended by striking
``Police)'' and inserting ``Police or the Supreme Court
Police)''.
(3) Immediate retirement.--Section 8336 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by redesignating subsection (n) as
subsection (o) and inserting after subsection (m) the
following:
``(n) A member of the Supreme Court Police who is separated
from the service after becoming 50 years of age and
completing 20 years of service as a member of the Supreme
Court Police or as a law enforcement officer, or any
combination of such service totaling at least 20 years, is
entitled to an annuity.''.
(4) Computation.--Section 8339 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by redesignating subsection (r) as
subsection (s) and inserting after subsection (q) the
following:
``(r) The annuity of a member of the Supreme Court Police,
or former member of the Supreme Court Police, retiring under
this subchapter is computed in accordance with subsection
(d).''.
(c) Amendments to Chapter 84.--
(1) Immediate retirement.--Section 8412(d) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``or Supreme
Court Police'' after ``Capitol Police'' each place it
appears.
(2) Computation of basic annuity.--Section 8415(g) of title
5, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``member of
the Supreme Court Police,'' after ``law enforcement
officer,''.
(3) Deductions from pay.--Section 8422(a)(3) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended in the item relating to law
enforcement officers by inserting ``member of the Supreme
Court Police,'' after ``member of the Capitol Police,''.
(4) Government contributions.--Section 8423(a) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``members of the
Supreme Court Police,'' after ``law enforcement officers,''
each place it appears.
(5) Mandatory separation.--(A) Section 8425 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by redesignating subsection
(d) as subsection (e) and inserting after subsection (c) the
following:
``(d) A member of the Supreme Court Police who is otherwise
eligible for immediate retirement under section 8412(d) shall
be separated from the service on the last day of the month in
which such member becomes 57 years of age or completes 20
years of service if then over that age. The Marshal of the
Supreme Court of the United States, when in his judgment the
public interest so requires, may exempt such a member from
automatic separation under this subsection until that member
becomes 60 years of age. The Marshal shall notify the member
in writing of the date of separation at least 60 days before
the date. Action to separate the member is not effective,
without the consent of the member, until the last day of the
month in which the 60-day notice expires.''.
(B) Section 8425(e) of title 5, United States Code, as so
redesignated, is amended by striking ``Police)'' and
inserting ``Police or Supreme Court Police)''.
(d) Payments for Other Liability.--
(1) In general.--The Marshal of the Supreme Court of the
United States shall pay into the Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund an amount determined by the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management to be necessary to reimburse
the Fund for any estimated increase in the unfunded liability
of the Fund resulting from the amendments related to the
Civil Service Retirement System under this section, and for
any estimated increase in the supplemental liability of the
Fund resulting from the amendments related to the Federal
Employees' Retirement System under this section.
(2) Installments.--The amount determined under paragraph
(1) shall be paid in 5 equal annual installments with
interest computed at the rates used in the most recent
valuation of the Federal Employees' Retirement System.
(3) Source of funds.--Payments under this subsection shall
be made from amounts available from the salaries and expenses
account from appropriations to the Supreme Court of the
United States, including any prior year unobligated balances.
(e) No Mandatory Separation for a 2-Year Period.--Nothing
in section 8335(e) or 8425(d) of title 5, United States Code,
as added by this section, shall require the automatic
separation of any member of the Supreme Court Police before
the end of the 2-year period beginning on the effective date
of this section.
(f) Nonreduction in Government Contributions.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
Government contributions to the Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund on behalf of a member of the Supreme Court
Police shall, with respect to any service performed during
the period beginning on January 1, 1999, and ending on
December 31, 2002, while subject to the Federal Employees'
Retirement System, be determined in the same way as if this
section had never been enacted.
(g) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section or in any
amendment made by this section shall, with respect to any
service performed before the effective date of such
amendment, have the effect of reducing the percentage
applicable in computing any portion of an annuity based on
service as a member of the Supreme Court Police below the
percentage which would otherwise apply if this section had
not been enacted.
(h) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 8337(a) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended in the last sentence by striking ``8339(a)-(e), (n),
(q), or (r)'' and inserting ``8339(a) through (e), (n), (q),
(r), or (s)''.
(2) Subsections (f) and (m) of section 8339 of title 5,
United States Code, are each amended by striking
``subsections (a)-(e), (n), (q), and (r)'' and inserting
``subsections (a) through (e), (n), (q), (r), and (s)''.
(3) Section 8339(g) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsections (a)-(c),
(n), (q), or (r)'' and inserting ``subsections (a) through
(c), (n), (q), (r), or (s)''; and
(B) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking
``(q), or (r)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(q),
(r), or (s)''.
(4) Section 8339(i) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``(a)-(h), (n), (q), and (r)'' and
inserting ``(a)-(h), (n), (q), (r), or (s)''.
(5) Sections 8339(j), 8339(k)(1), and 8343a of title 5,
United States Code, are each amended by striking ``(a)-(i),
(n), (q), and (r)'' each place it appears and inserting
``(a)-(i), (n), (q), (r), and (s)''.
[[Page 24622]]
(6) Section 8339(l) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``(a)-(k), (n), (q), and (r)'' and
inserting ``(a)-(k), (n), (q), (r), and (s)''.
(7) Subsections (b)(1) and (d) of section 8341 of title 5,
United States Code, are each amended by striking ``(q), and
(r)'' and inserting ``(q), (r), and (s)''.
(8) Section 8344(a)(A) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``(q), and (r)'' and inserting ``(q),
(r), and (s)''.
(i) Applicability.--This section and the amendments made by
this section shall apply only to an individual who is
employed as a member of the Supreme Court Police after the
later of October 1, 2000, or the date of enactment of this
Act.
(j) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, this section and the amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the first day of the first applicable
pay period that begins on the later of October 1, 2000, or
the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 309. Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92,
Justices and judges of the United States are authorized
during fiscal year 2001, to receive a salary adjustment in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. 461, only if for the purposes of
each provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2) of the
Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5318 note), adjustments
under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall take
effect in fiscal year 2001: Provided, That, if such
adjustments take effect pursuant to this section, $8,801,000
is appropriated for such adjustments pursuant to this section
and such funds shall be transferred to and merged with
appropriations in title III of this Act.
This title may be cited as the ``Judiciary Appropriations
Act, 2001''.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Administration of Foreign Affairs
diplomatic and consular programs
For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the
Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including
employment, without regard to civil service and
classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to
exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized;
representation to certain international organizations in
which the United States participates pursuant to treaties,
ratified pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, or
specific Acts of Congress; arms control, nonproliferation and
disarmament activities as authorized; acquisition by exchange
or purchase of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by law;
and for expenses of general administration, $2,758,725,000:
Provided, That, of the amount made available under this
heading, not to exceed $4,000,000 may be transferred to, and
merged with, funds in the ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and
Consular Service'' appropriations account, to be available
only for emergency evacuations and terrorism rewards:
Provided further, That, in fiscal year 2001, all receipts
collected from individuals for assistance in the preparation
and filing of an affidavit of support pursuant to section
213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall be
deposited into this account as an offsetting collection and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further,
That, of the amount made available under this heading,
$246,644,000 shall be available only for public diplomacy
international information programs: Provided further, That of
the amount made available under this heading, $5,000,000
shall be available only for overseas continuing language
education: Provided further, That of the amount made
available under this heading, not to exceed $1,400,000 shall
be available for transfer to the Presidential Advisory
Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States: Provided
further, That notwithstanding section 140(a)(5), and the
second sentence of section 140(a)(3), of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, fees
may be collected during fiscal years 2001 and 2002, under the
authority of section 140(a)(1) of that Act: Provided further,
That all fees collected under the preceding proviso shall be
deposited in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 as an offsetting
collection to appropriations made under this heading to
recover costs as set forth under section 140(a)(2) of that
Act and shall remain available until expended: Provided
further, That advances for services authorized by 22 U.S.C.
3620(c) may be credited to this account, to remain available
until expended for such services: Provided further, That in
fiscal year 2001 and thereafter reimbursements for services
provided to the press in connection with the travel of
senior-level officials may be collected and credited to this
appropriation and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That no funds may be obligated or expended
for processing licenses for the export of satellites of
United States origin (including commercial satellites and
satellite components) to the People's Republic of China,
unless, at least 15 days in advance, the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
are notified of such proposed action: Provided further, That
of the amount made available under this heading, $40,000,000
shall only be available to implement the 1999 Pacific Salmon
Treaty Agreement, of which $10,000,000 shall be deposited in
the Northern Boundary and Transboundary Rivers Restoration
and Enhancement Fund, of which $10,000,000 shall be deposited
in the Southern Boundary Restoration and Enhancement Fund,
and of which $20,000,000 shall be for a direct payment to the
State of Washington for obligations under the 1999 Pacific
Salmon Treaty Agreement.
In addition, not to exceed $1,252,000 shall be derived from
fees collected from other executive agencies for lease or use
of facilities located at the International Center in
accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act, as
amended; in addition, as authorized by section 5 of such Act,
$490,000, to be derived from the reserve authorized by that
section, to be used for the purposes set out in that section;
in addition, as authorized by section 810 of the United
States Information and Educational Exchange Act, not to
exceed $6,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be
credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments
received from English teaching, library, motion pictures, and
publication programs, and from fees from educational advising
and counseling, and exchange visitor programs; and, in
addition, not to exceed $15,000, which shall be derived from
reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use of Blair House
facilities.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades,
$410,000,000, to remain available until expended.
capital investment fund
For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund,
$97,000,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized: Provided, That section 135(e) of Public Law 103-
236 shall not apply to funds available under this heading.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$28,490,000, notwithstanding section 209(a)(1) of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980, as amended (Public Law 96-465), as it
relates to post inspections.
educational and cultural exchange programs
For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs,
as authorized, $231,587,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $800,000, to remain
available until expended, may be credited to this
appropriation from fees or other payments received from or in
connection with English teaching and educational advising and
counseling programs as authorized.
representation allowances
For representation allowances as authorized, $6,499,000.
protection of foreign missions and officials
For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the
Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective
services, as authorized, $15,467,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2002: Provided, That, notwithstanding the
limitations of 3 U.S.C. 202(10) concerning 20 or more
consulates, of the amount made available under this heading,
$5,000,000 shall be available only for the reimbursement of
costs incurred by the City of Seattle, Washington.
embassy security, construction, and maintenance
For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service
Buildings Act of 1926, as amended (22 U.S.C. 292-300),
preserving, maintaining, repairing, and planning for,
buildings that are owned or directly leased by the Department
of State, renovating, in addition to funds otherwise
available, the Main State Building, and carrying out the
Diplomatic Security Construction Program as authorized,
$416,976,000, to remain available until expended as
authorized, of which not to exceed $25,000 may be used for
domestic and overseas representation as authorized: Provided,
That none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall
be available for acquisition of furniture and furnishings and
generators for other departments and agencies.
In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades,
acquisition, and construction as authorized, $663,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service
For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to
meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and
Consular Service, $5,477,000, to remain available until
expended as authorized, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may
be transferred to and merged with the Repatriation Loans
Program Account, subject to the same terms and conditions.
repatriation loans program account
For the cost of direct loans, $591,000, as authorized:
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for
administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct
loan program, $604,000, which may be transferred to and
merged with the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account
under Administration of Foreign Affairs.
payment to the american institute in taiwan
For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations
Act, Public Law 96-8, $16,345,000.
payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund
For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and
Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $131,224,000.
International Organizations and Conferences
contributions to international organizations
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet
annual obligations of membership in international
multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified
pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions
or specific Acts of Congress, $870,833,000: Provided, That
any payment of arrearages under this title
[[Page 24623]]
shall be directed toward special activities that are mutually
agreed upon by the United States and the respective
international organization: Provided further, That none of
the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available
for a United States contribution to an international
organization for the United States share of interest costs
made known to the United States Government by such
organization for loans incurred on or after October 1, 1984,
through external borrowings: Provided further, That of the
funds appropriated in this paragraph, $100,000,000 may be
made available only pursuant to a certification by the
Secretary of State that the United Nations has taken no
action in calendar year 2000 prior to the date of enactment
of this Act to increase funding for any United Nations
program without identifying an offsetting decrease elsewhere
in the United Nations budget and cause the United Nations to
exceed the budget for the biennium 2000-2001 of
$2,535,700,000: Provided further, That if the Secretary of
State is unable to make the aforementioned certification, the
$100,000,000 is to be applied to paying the current year
assessment for other international organizations for which
the assessment has not been paid in full or to paying the
assessment due in the next fiscal year for such
organizations, subject to the reprogramming procedures
contained in Section 605 of this Act: Provided further, That
funds appropriated under this paragraph may be obligated and
expended to pay the full United States assessment to the
civil budget of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
contributions for international peacekeeping activities
For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses
of international peacekeeping activities directed to the
maintenance or restoration of international peace and
security, $846,000,000, of which 15 percent shall remain
available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That none of
the funds made available under this Act shall be obligated or
expended for any new or expanded United Nations peacekeeping
mission unless, at least 15 days in advance of voting for the
new or expanded mission in the United Nations Security
Council (or in an emergency, as far in advance as is
practicable): (1) the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate and other appropriate
committees of the Congress are notified of the estimated cost
and length of the mission, the vital national interest that
will be served, and the planned exit strategy; and (2) a
reprogramming of funds pursuant to section 605 of this Act is
submitted, and the procedures therein followed, setting forth
the source of funds that will be used to pay for the cost of
the new or expanded mission: Provided further, That funds
shall be available for peacekeeping expenses only upon a
certification by the Secretary of State to the appropriate
committees of the Congress that American manufacturers and
suppliers are being given opportunities to provide equipment,
services, and material for United Nations peacekeeping
activities equal to those being given to foreign
manufacturers and suppliers: Provided further, That none of
the funds made available under this heading are available to
pay the United States share of the cost of court monitoring
that is part of any United Nations peacekeeping mission.
international commissions
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet
obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or
specific Acts of Congress, as follows:
international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico
For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States
and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United
States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for
representation; as follows:
salaries and expenses
For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for,
$7,142,000.
construction
For detailed plan preparation and construction of
authorized projects, $22,950,000, to remain available until
expended, as authorized.
american sections, international commissions
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for the
International Joint Commission and the International Boundary
Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by
treaties between the United States and Canada or Great
Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182, $6,741,000,
of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available for
representation expenses incurred by the International Joint
Commission.
international fisheries commissions
For necessary expenses for international fisheries
commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by
law, $19,392,000: Provided, That the United States' share of
such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions,
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.
Other
payment to the asia foundation
For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by
section 501 of Public Law 101-246, $9,250,000, to remain
available until expended, as authorized.
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund
For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships,
Incorporated, as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
5205), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower
Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September
30, 2001, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay
any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any
contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the
rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are
not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform
Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for
Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on
compensation for personal services.
israeli arab scholarship program
For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship
Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C.
2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab
Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 2001, to remain
available until expended.
East-West Center
To enable the Secretary of State to provide for carrying
out the provisions of the Center for Cultural and Technical
Interchange Between East and West Act of 1960, by grant to
the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between
East and West in the State of Hawaii, $13,500,000: Provided,
That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to
pay any salary, or enter into any contract providing for the
payment thereof, in excess of the rate authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5376.
national endowment for democracy
For grants made by the Department of State to the National
Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the National
Endowment for Democracy Act, $30,999,000, to remain available
until expended.
RELATED AGENCY
Broadcasting Board of Governors
international broadcasting operations
For expenses necessary to enable the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, as authorized, to carry out international
communication activities, $398,971,000, of which not to
exceed $16,000 may be used for official receptions within the
United States as authorized, not to exceed $35,000 may be
used for representation abroad as authorized, and not to
exceed $39,000 may be used for official reception and
representation expenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty;
and in addition, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $2,000,000 in receipts from advertising and
revenue from business ventures, not to exceed $500,000 in
receipts from cooperating international organizations, and
not to exceed $1,000,000 in receipts from privatization
efforts of the Voice of America and the International
Broadcasting Bureau, to remain available until expended for
carrying out authorized purposes.
broadcasting to cuba
For necessary expenses to enable the Broadcasting Board of
Governors to carry out broadcasting to Cuba, including the
purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of facilities
for radio and television transmission and reception, and
purchase and installation of necessary equipment for radio
and television transmission and reception, $22,095,000, to
remain available until expended.
broadcasting capital improvements
For the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of
facilities for radio transmission and reception, and purchase
and installation of necessary equipment for radio and
television transmission and reception as authorized,
$20,358,000, to remain available until expended, as
authorized.
General Provisions--Department of State and Related Agency
Sec. 401. Funds appropriated under this title shall be
available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and
differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 of title 5,
United States Code; for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109; and hire of passenger transportation pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 1343(b).
Sec. 402. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
State in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That not to
exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the
current fiscal year for the Broadcasting Board of Governors
in this Act may be transferred between such appropriations,
but no such appropriation, except as otherwise specifically
provided, shall be increased by more than 10 percent by any
such transfers: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant
to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds
under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board
of Governors to provide equipment, technical support,
consulting services, or any other form of assistance to the
Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
Sec. 404. (a) Section 1(a)(2) of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``and the Deputy Secretary of State'' and inserting
``, the Deputy Secretary of State, and the Deputy Secretary
of State for Management and Resources''.
[[Page 24624]]
(b) Section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``Deputy Secretary of State for Management and
Resources.'' after the item relating to the ``Deputy
Secretary of State''.
Sec. 405. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act for the United Nations may be used by
the United Nations for the promulgation or enforcement of any
treaty, resolution, or regulation authorizing the United
Nations, or any of its specialized agencies or affiliated
organizations, to tax any aspect of the Internet.
Sec. 406. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this
or any other Act may be used to allow for the entry into, or
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption in the United
States of diamonds if the country of origin in which such
diamonds were mined (as evidenced by a legible certificate of
origin) is the Republic of Sierra Leone, the Republic of
Liberia, the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the Republic of Angola
with the exception of diamonds certified by the lawful
governments of the Republic of Sierra Leone, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, or the Republic of Angola.
Sec. 407. Section 37(a)(3) of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act, as amended, (22 U.S.C. 2709) is amended by--
(1) striking ``and'' at the end of subsection (a)(3)(C);
and
(2) by inserting at the end the following new subsections:
``(E) a departing Secretary of State for a period of up to
180 days after the date of termination of that individual's
incumbency as Secretary of State, on the basis of a threat
assessment; and
``(F) an individual who has been designated by the
President to serve as Secretary of State, prior to that
individual's appointment.''.
Sec. 408. Funds appropriated by this Act for the
Broadcasting Board of Governors and the Department of State,
and for the American Section of the International Joint
Commission in Public Law 106-246, may be obligated and
expended notwithstanding section 313 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, and section 15
of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as
amended.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and
Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2001''.
TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
maritime security program
For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the
United States, $98,700,000, to remain available until
expended.
operations and training
For necessary expenses of operations and training
activities authorized by law, $86,910,000.
maritime guaranteed loan (title xi) program account
For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, $30,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost
of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan program, not to exceed $3,987,000, which
shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
Operations and Training.
administrative provisions--maritime administration
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish utilities
and services and make necessary repairs in connection with
any lease, contract, or occupancy involving Government
property under control of the Maritime Administration, and
payments received therefore shall be credited to the
appropriation charged with the cost thereof: Provided, That
rental payments under any such lease, contract, or occupancy
for items other than such utilities, services, or repairs
shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
No obligations shall be incurred during the current fiscal
year from the construction fund established by the Merchant
Marine Act, 1936, or otherwise, in excess of the
appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in
any prior appropriation Act.
Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad
salaries and expenses
For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of
America's Heritage Abroad, $490,000, as authorized by section
1303 of Public Law 99-83.
Commission on Civil Rights
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights,
including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $8,900,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $50,000 may be used to employ
consultants: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to employ in
excess of four full-time individuals under Schedule C of the
Excepted Service exclusive of one special assistant for each
Commissioner: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to reimburse
Commissioners for more than 75 billable days, with the
exception of the chairperson, who is permitted 125 billable
days.
Commission on Ocean Policy
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For the necessary expenses of the Commission on Ocean
Policy, pursuant to S. 2327 as passed the Senate, $1,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That the
Commission shall present to the Congress within 18 months of
appointment its recommendations for a national ocean policy.
Commission on Security and Cooperation In Europe
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304,
$1,370,000, to remain available until expended as authorized
by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Congressional-Executive
Commission on the People's Republic of China, as authorized,
$500,000, to remain available until expended.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights
Act of 1991, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31
U.S.C. 1343(b); non-monetary awards to private citizens; and
not to exceed $30,000,000 for payments to State and local
enforcement agencies for services to the Commission pursuant
to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
sections 6 and 14 of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1991, $303,864,000: Provided, That the
Commission is authorized to make available for official
reception and representation expenses not to exceed $2,500
from available funds.
Federal Communications Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications
Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; not
to exceed $600,000 for land and structure; not to exceed
$500,000 for improvement and care of grounds and repair to
buildings; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception and
representation expenses; purchase (not to exceed 16) and hire
of motor vehicles; special counsel fees; and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $230,000,000, of which not to
exceed $300,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2002, for research and policy studies: Provided, That
$200,146,000 of offsetting collections shall be assessed and
collected pursuant to section 9 of title I of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and shall be retained
and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as such
offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2001
so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001 appropriation
estimated at $29,854,000: Provided further, That any
offsetting collections received in excess of $200,146,000 in
fiscal year 2001 shall remain available until expended, but
shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 2001.
Federal Maritime Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission
as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act,
1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. App. 1111), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles
as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902,
$15,500,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.
Federal Trade Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission,
including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $2,000 for
official reception and representation expenses, $145,254,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $300,000 shall be available for
use to contract with a person or persons for collection
services in accordance with the terms of 31 U.S.C. 3718, as
amended: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section
3302(b) of title 31, United States Code, not to exceed
$145,254,000 of offsetting collections derived from fees
collected for premerger notification filings under the Hart-
Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C.
18(a)) shall be retained and used for necessary expenses in
this appropriation, and shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting
collections are received during fiscal year 2001, so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2001 appropriation from the
general fund estimated at not more than $0, to remain
available until expended: Provided further, That
[[Page 24625]]
none of the funds made available to the Federal Trade
Commission shall be available for obligation for expenses
authorized by section 151 of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-242; 105
Stat. 2282-2285).
Legal Services Corporation
payment to the legal services corporation
For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out
the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974,
as amended, $330,000,000, of which $310,000,000 is for basic
field programs and required independent audits; $2,200,000 is
for the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as
may be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of
recipients; $10,800,000 is for management and administration;
and $7,000,000 is for client self-help and information
technology.
administrative provision--legal services corporation
None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal
Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose
prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the
provisions of, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 506 of
Public Law 105-119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions set forth in such sections, except that
all references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall
be deemed to refer instead to 2000 and 2001, respectively.
Marine Mammal Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as
authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, as amended,
$1,700,000.
Securities and Exchange Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases)
in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed
$3,000 for official reception and representation expenses,
$127,800,000 from fees collected in fiscal year 2001 to
remain available until expended, and from fees collected in
fiscal year 1999, $295,000,000, to remain available until
expended; of which not to exceed $10,000 may be used toward
funding a permanent secretariat for the International
Organization of Securities Commissions; and of which not to
exceed $100,000 shall be available for expenses for
consultations and meetings hosted by the Commission with
foreign governmental and other regulatory officials, members
of their delegations, appropriate representatives and staff
to exchange views concerning developments relating to
securities matters, development and implementation of
cooperation agreements concerning securities matters and
provision of technical assistance for the development of
foreign securities markets, such expenses to include
necessary logistic and administrative expenses and the
expenses of Commission staff and foreign invitees in
attendance at such consultations and meetings including: (1)
such incidental expenses as meals taken in the course of such
attendance; (2) any travel and transportation to or from such
meetings; and (3) any other related lodging or subsistence:
Provided, That fees and charges authorized by sections
6(b)(4) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)(4))
and 31(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78ee(d)) shall be credited to this account as offsetting
collections.
Small Business Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law
105-135, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed
$3,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$331,635,000: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized
to charge fees to cover the cost of publications developed by
the Small Business Administration, and certain loan servicing
activities: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302, revenues received from all such activities shall be
credited to this account, to be available for carrying out
these purposes without further appropriations: Provided
further, That $88,000,000 shall be available to fund grants
for performance in fiscal year 2001 or fiscal year 2002 as
authorized by section 21 of the Small Business Act, as
amended: Provided further, That, of the funds made available
under this heading, $4,000,000 shall be for the National
Veterans Business Development Corporation established under
section 33(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657c).
In addition, for the costs of programs related to the New
Markets Venture Capital Program, $37,000,000, of which
$7,000,000 shall be for BusinessLINC, and of which
$30,000,000 shall be for technical assistance: Provided, That
the funds appropriated under this paragraph shall not be
available for obligation until the New Markets Venture
Capital Program is authorized by subsequent legislation.
In addition, to reimburse the Small Business Administration
for qualified expenses of delinquent non-tax debt collection,
to be derived from increased agency collections of delinquent
debt, 5 percent of such collections but not to exceed
$3,000,000.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), $11,953,000.
business loans program account
For the cost of direct loans, $2,250,000, to be available
until expended; and for the cost of guaranteed loans,
$163,160,000, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note, of which
$45,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2002:
Provided, That of the total provided, $22,000,000 shall be
available only for the costs of guaranteed loans under the
New Markets Venture Capital program and shall become
available for obligation only upon authorization of such
program by the enactment of subsequent legislation in fiscal
year 2001: Provided further, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended:
Provided further, That during fiscal year 2001, commitments
to guarantee loans under section 503 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, as amended, shall not exceed
$3,750,000,000: Provided further, That during fiscal year
2001, commitments for general business loans authorized under
section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, as amended, shall not
exceed $10,000,000,000 without prior notification of the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and Senate in accordance with section 605 of this Act:
Provided further, That during fiscal year 2001, commitments
to guarantee loans under section 303(b) of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958, as amended, shall not exceed
$500,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $129,000,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for
Salaries and Expenses.
disaster loans program account
For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of
the Small Business Act, as amended, $76,140,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, $108,354,000, which may be transferred
to and merged with appropriations for Salaries and Expenses,
of which $500,000 is for the Office of Inspector General of
the Small Business Administration for audits and reviews of
disaster loans and the disaster loan program and shall be
transferred to and merged with appropriations for the Office
of Inspector General; of which $98,000,000 is for direct
administrative expenses of loan making and servicing to carry
out the direct loan program; and of which $9,854,000 is for
indirect administrative expenses: Provided, That any amount
in excess of $9,854,000 to be transferred to and merged with
appropriations for Salaries and Expenses for indirect
administrative expenses shall be treated as a reprogramming
of funds under section 605 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
administrative provision--small business administration
Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available
for the current fiscal year for the Small Business
Administration in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That
any transfer pursuant to this paragraph shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
State Justice Institute
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as
authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act
of 1992 (Public Law 102-572; 106 Stat. 4515-4516),
$6,850,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That not to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses.
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application
of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be
held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of
each provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or
provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2001, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new
[[Page 24626]]
programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3)
increases funds or personnel by any means for any project or
activity for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4)
relocates an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices,
programs, or activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes
any functions, or activities presently performed by Federal
employees; unless the Appropriations Committees of both
Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided
under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 2001, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Appropriations Committees of
both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
Sec. 606. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the construction, repair (other than emergency
repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of vessels
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
shipyards located outside of the United States.
Sec. 607. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 608. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering
harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the
Federal entity or official to which such funds are made
available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect
from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on
October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is made
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds: (1) that the United Nations undertaking is
a peacekeeping mission; (2) that such undertaking will
involve United States Armed Forces under the command or
operational control of a foreign national; and (3) that the
President's military advisors have not submitted to the
President a recommendation that such involvement is in the
national security interests of the United States and the
President has not submitted to the Congress such a
recommendation.
Sec. 610. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose
for which appropriations are prohibited by section 609 of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
(b) The requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 609 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal
year 2001.
Sec. 611. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used to provide the following amenities or personal
comforts in the Federal prison system--
(1) in-cell television viewing except for prisoners who are
segregated from the general prison population for their own
safety;
(2) the viewing of R, X, and NC-17 rated movies, through
whatever medium presented;
(3) any instruction (live or through broadcasts) or
training equipment for boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, or
other martial art, or any bodybuilding or weightlifting
equipment of any sort;
(4) possession of in-cell coffee pots, hot plates or
heating elements; or
(5) the use or possession of any electric or electronic
musical instrument.
Sec. 612. None of the funds made available in title II for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
under the headings ``Operations, Research, and Facilities''
and ``Procurement, Acquisition and Construction'' may be used
to implement sections 603, 604, and 605 of Public Law 102-
567: Provided, That NOAA may develop a modernization plan for
its fisheries research vessels that takes fully into account
opportunities for contracting for fisheries surveys.
Sec. 613. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken
in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall
be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to
such department or agency: Provided, That the authority to
transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be
necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition
to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided
further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Sec. 614. Hereafter, none of the funds made available in
this Act to the Federal Bureau of Prisons may be used to
distribute or make available any commercially published
information or material to a prisoner when it is made known
to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that such information or material is
sexually explicit or features nudity.
Sec. 615. Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the
heading ``Office of Justice Programs--State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance'', not more than 90 percent of the
amount to be awarded to an entity under the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant shall be made available to such an
entity when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that the entity
that employs a public safety officer (as such term is defined
in section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968) does not provide such a public
safety officer who retires or is separated from service due
to injury suffered as the direct and proximate result of a
personal injury sustained in the line of duty while
responding to an emergency situation or a hot pursuit (as
such terms are defined by State law) with the same or better
level of health insurance benefits at the time of retirement
or separation as they received while on duty.
Sec. 616. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign
country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or
tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not
applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the
same type.
Sec. 617. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose
for which appropriations are prohibited by section 616 of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as amended.
(b) Subsection (a)(1) of section 616 of that Act, as
amended, is further amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after ``Toussaint,''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end of the
subsection, ``, Jean Leopold Dominique, Jean-Claude
Louissaint, Legitime Athis and his wife, Christa Joseph
Athis, Jean-Michel Olophene, Claudy Myrthil, Merilus Deus,
and Ferdinand Dorvil''.
(c) The requirements in subsections (b) and (c) of section
616 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal year
2001.
Sec. 618. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
Act or any other provision of law may be used for: (1) the
implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the
implementation of 18 U.S.C. 922(t); and (2) any system to
implement 18 U.S.C. 922(t) that does not require and result
in the destruction of any identifying information submitted
by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to
be prohibited from owning a firearm.
Sec. 619. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
amounts deposited or available in the Fund established under
42 U.S.C. 10601 in any fiscal year in excess of $537,500,000
shall not be available for obligation until the following
fiscal year.
Sec. 620. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate
against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of
students who participate in programs for which financial
assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or
legal guardians of such students.
Sec. 621. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
be available for the purpose of granting either immigrant or
nonimmigrant visas, or both, consistent with the Secretary's
determination under section 243(d) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, to citizens, subjects, nationals, or
residents of countries that the Attorney General has
determined deny or unreasonably delay accepting the return of
citizens, subjects, nationals, or residents under that
section.
Sec. 622. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose
of transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to
conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is
classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than
to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a
prisoner.
Sec. 623. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation
for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted
[[Page 24627]]
on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to
the Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to
article II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States
Constitution, and which has not entered into force pursuant
to article 25 of the Protocol.
Sec. 624. Beginning 60 days from the date of the enactment
of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be made available for the
participation by delegates of the United States to the
Standing Consultative Commission unless the President
certifies and so reports to the Committees on Appropriations
that the United States Government is not implementing the
Memorandum of Understanding Relating to the Treaty Between
the United States of America and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics on the limitation of Anti-Ballistic
Missile Systems of May 26, 1972, entered into in New York on
September 26, 1997, by the United States, Russia, Kazakhstan,
Belarus, and Ukraine, or until the Senate provides its advice
and consent to the Memorandum of Understanding.
Sec. 625. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
available to the Department of State to approve the purchase
of property in Arlington, Virginia by the Xinhua News Agency.
Sec. 626. Title 18, section 4006(b)(1) is amended by
inserting, ``, the Federal Bureau of Investigation'' after
``United States Marshals Service''.
Sec. 627. Section 3022 of the 1999 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (113 Stat. 100) is amended by striking
``between the date of enactment of this Act and October 1,
2000,''.
Sec. 628. Section 623 of H.R. 3421 (the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 3645)), as
enacted into law by section 1000(a)(1) of Public Law 106-113
(113 Stat. 1535), is amended--
(a) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``The Northern Fund
and Southern Fund shall each receive $10,000,000 of the
amounts authorized by this section.'';
(b) by striking subsection (d) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following new subsection:
``(d)(1) Pacific Salmon Treaty.--
``(A) For capitalizing the Northern Fund there is
authorized to be appropriated in fiscal years 2000, 2001,
2002, and 2003 a total of $75,000,000.
``(B) For capitalizing the Southern Fund there is
authorized to be appropriated in fiscal years 2000, 2001,
2002, and 2003 a total of $65,000,000.
``(C) To provide economic adjustment assistance to
fishermen pursuant to the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty
Agreement, there is authorized to be appropriated in fiscal
years 2000, 2001, and 2002 a total of $30,000,000.
``(2) Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery.--
``(A) For salmon habitat restoration, salmon stock
enhancement, and salmon research, including the construction
of salmon research and related facilities, there is
authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2000,
2001, 2002, and 2003, $90,000,000 to the States of Alaska,
Washington, Oregon, and California. Amounts appropriated
pursuant to this subparagraph shall be made available as
direct payments. The State of Alaska may allocate a portion
of any funds it receives under this subsection to eligible
activities outside Alaska.
``(B) For salmon habitat restoration, salmon stock
enhancement, salmon research, and supplementation activities,
there is authorized to be appropriated in each of fiscal
years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, $10,000,000 to be divided
between the Pacific Coastal tribes (as defined by the
Secretary of Commerce) and the Columbia River tribes (as
defined by the Secretary of Commerce).''.
Sec. 629. Section 3(3) of the Interstate Horseracing Act of
1978 (15 U.S.C. 3002(3)) is amended by inserting ``and
includes pari-mutuel wagers, where lawful in each State
involved, placed or transmitted by an individual in one State
via telephone or other electronic media and accepted by an
off-track betting system in the same or another State, as
well as the combination of any pari-mutuel wagering pools''
after ``another State''.
Sec. 630. (a) Section 7A(a) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.
18a(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Except as exempted pursuant to subsection (c), no
person shall acquire, directly or indirectly, any voting
securities or assets of any other person, unless both persons
(or in the case of a tender offer, the acquiring person) file
notification pursuant to rules under subsection (d)(1) and
the waiting period described in subsection (b)(1) has
expired, if--
``(1) the acquiring person, or the person whose voting
securities or assets are being acquired, is engaged in
commerce or in any activity affecting commerce; and
``(2) as a result of such acquisition, the acquiring person
would hold an aggregate total amount of the voting securities
and assets of the acquired person--
``(A) in excess of $200,000,000 (as adjusted and published
for each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2004, in
the same manner as provided in section 8(a)(5) to reflect the
percentage change in the gross national product for such
fiscal year compared to the gross national product for the
year ending September 30, 2003); or
``(B)(i) in excess of $50,000,000 (as so adjusted and
published) but not in excess of $200,000,000 (as so adjusted
and published); and
``(ii)(I) any voting securities or assets of a person
engaged in manufacturing which has annual net sales or total
assets of $10,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) or more
are being acquired by any person which has total assets or
annual net sales of $100,000,000 (as so adjusted and
published) or more;
``(II) any voting securities or assets of a person not
engaged in manufacturing which has total assets of
$10,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) or more are being
acquired by any person which has total assets or annual net
sales of $100,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) or more;
or
``(III) any voting securities or assets of a person with
annual net sales or total assets of $100,000,000 (as so
adjusted and published) or more are being acquired by any
person with total assets or annual net sales of $10,000,000
(as so adjusted and published) or more.
In the case of a tender offer, the person whose voting
securities are sought to be acquired by a person required to
file notification under this subsection shall file
notification pursuant to rules under subsection (d).''.
(b) Section 605 of title VI of Public Law 101-162 (15
U.S.C. 18a note) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 605.'',
(2) in the 1st sentence--
(A) by striking ``at $45,000'' and inserting ``in
subsection (b)'', and
(B) by striking ``Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements
Act of 1976'' and inserting ``section 7A of the Clayton
Act'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) The filing fees referred to in subsection (a) are--
``(1) $45,000 if the aggregate total amount determined
under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.
18a(a)(2)) is less than $100,000,000 (as adjusted and
published for each fiscal year beginning after September 30,
2004, in the same manner as provided in section 8(a)(5) of
the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 19(a)(5)) to reflect the
percentage change in the gross national product for such
fiscal year compared to the gross national product for the
year ending September 30, 2003);
``(2) $125,000 if the aggregate total amount determined
under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.
18a(a)(2)) is not less than $100,000,000 (as so adjusted and
published) but less than $500,000,000 (as so adjusted and
published); and
``(3) $280,000 if the aggregate total amount determined
under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.
18a(a)(2)) is not less than $500,000,000 (as so adjusted and
published).'',
(4) by striking ``States.'' and inserting ``States'', and
(5) by adding a period at the end.
(c) Section 7A(e)(1) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.
18a(e)(1)) is amended)--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)'', and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
``(B)(i) The Assistant Attorney General and the Federal
Trade Commission shall each designate a senior official who
does not have direct responsibility for the review of any
enforcement recommendation under this section concerning the
transaction at issue, to hear any petition filed by such
person to determine--
``(I) whether the request for additional information or
documentary material is unreasonably cumulative, unduly
burdensome, or duplicative; or
``(II) whether the request for additional information or
documentary material has been substantially complied with by
the petitioning person.
``(ii) Internal review procedures for petitions filed
pursuant to clause (i) shall include reasonable deadlines for
expedited review of such petitions, after reasonable
negotiations with investigative staff, in order to avoid
undue delay of the merger review process.
``(iii) Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Assistant Attorney General and the
Federal Trade Commission shall conduct an internal review and
implement reforms of the merger review process in order to
eliminate unnecessary burden, remove costly duplication, and
eliminate undue delay, in order to achieve a more effective
and more efficient merger review process.
``(iv) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Assistant Attorney General and the Federal
Trade Commission shall issue or amend their respective
industry guidance, regulations, operating manuals and
relevant policy documents, to the extent appropriate, to
implement each reform in this subparagraph.
``(v) Not later than 180 days after the date the of
enactment of this Act, the Assistant Attorney General and the
Federal Trade Commission shall each report to Congress--
``(I) which reforms each agency has adopted under this
subparagraph;
``(II) which steps each has taken to implement such
internal reforms; and
``(III) the effects of such reforms.''.
(d) Section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``20 days'' and
inserting ``30 days'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) If the end of any period of time provided in this
section falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal public holiday
(as defined in section 6103(a) of title 5 of the United
States Code), then such period shall be extended to the end
of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
public holiday.''.
(e) This section and the amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st month that begins
more than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
[[Page 24628]]
Sec. 631. (a) The Secretary of the Army is authorized to
take all necessary measures to further stabilize and renovate
Lock and Dam 10 at Boonesborough, Kentucky, with the purpose
of extending the design life of the structure by an
additional 50 years, at a total cost of $24,000,000, with an
estimated Federal cost of $19,200,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $4,800,000.
(b) For purposes of this section only, ``stabilize and
renovate'' shall include, but shall not be limited to, the
following activities: stabilization of the main dam,
auxiliary dam and lock; renovation of all operational aspects
of the lock; and elevation of the main and auxiliary dams.
Sec. 632. (a)(1) The Federal Communications Commission
shall modify the rules authorizing the operation of low-power
FM radio stations, as proposed in MM Docket No. 99-25, to--
(A) prescribe minimum distance separations for third-
adjacent channels (as well as for co-channels and first- and
second-adjacent channels); and
(B) prohibit any applicant from obtaining a low-power FM
license if the applicant has engaged in any manner in the
unlicensed operation of any station in violation of section
301 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301).
(2) The Federal Communications Commission may not--
(A) eliminate or reduce the minimum distance separations
for third-adjacent channels required by paragraph (1)(A); or
(B) extend the eligibility for application for low-power FM
stations beyond the organizations and entities as proposed in
MM Docket No. 99-25 (47 CFR 73.853),
except as expressly authorized by an Act of Congress enacted
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Any license that was issued by the Commission to a low-
power FM station prior to the date on which the Commission
modifies its rules as required by paragraph (1) and that does
not comply with such modifications shall be invalid.
(b)(1) The Federal Communications Commission shall conduct
an experimental program to test whether low-power FM radio
stations will result in harmful interference to existing FM
radio stations if such stations are not subject to the
minimum distance separations for third-adjacent channels
required by subsection (a). The Commission shall conduct such
test in no more than nine FM radio markets, including urban,
suburban, and rural markets, by waiving the minimum distance
separations for third-adjacent channels for the stations that
are the subject of the experimental program. At least one of
the stations shall be selected for the purpose of evaluating
whether minimum distance separations for third-adjacent
channels are needed for FM translator stations. The
Commission may, consistent with the public interest, continue
after the conclusion of the experimental program to waive the
minimum distance separations for third-adjacent channels for
the stations that are the subject of the experimental
program.
(2) The Commission shall select an independent testing
entity to conduct field tests in the markets of the stations
in the experimental program under paragraph (1). Such field
tests shall include--
(A) an opportunity for the public to comment on
interference; and
(B) independent audience listening tests to determine what
is objectionable and harmful interference to the average
radio listener.
(3) The Commission shall publish the results of the
experimental program and field tests and afford an
opportunity for the public to comment on such results. The
Federal Communications Commission shall submit a report on
the experimental program and field tests to the Committee on
Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later
than February 1, 2001. Such report shall include--
(A) an analysis of the experimental program and field tests
and of the public comment received by the Commission;
(B) an evaluation of the impact of the modification or
elimination of minimum distance separations for third-
adjacent channels on--
(i) listening audiences;
(ii) incumbent FM radio broadcasters in general, and on
minority and small market broadcasters in particular,
including an analysis of the economic impact on such
broadcasters;
(iii) the transition to digital radio for terrestrial radio
broadcasters;
(iv) stations that provide a reading service for the blind
to the public; and
(v) FM radio translator stations;
(C) the Commission's recommendations to the Congress to
reduce or eliminate the minimum distance separations for
third-adjacent channels required by subsection (a); and
(D) such other information and recommendations as the
Commission considers appropriate.
Sec. 633. For an additional amount for ``Small Business
Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', $40,000,000, of
which $2,500,000 shall be available for a grant to the NTTC
at Wheeling Jesuit University to continue the outreach
program to assist small business development; $600,000 shall
be available for a grant for Western Carolina University to
develop a tourism and hospitality curriculum; $2,500,000
shall be available for a grant to the Bronx Museum of the
Arts, New York, to develop facilities, including the Museum's
participation in the Point Residency and the Community
Gallery projects; $1,000,000 shall be available for a grant
to Soundview Community in Action in the Bronx, New York, for
a technology access and business improvement project;
$5,000,000 shall be available for the Center for Rural
Development, Somerset, Kentucky, for a regional program of
technology workforce development; $1,500,000 shall be
available for a grant to the State University of New York to
develop a facility and operate the Institute of
Entrepreneurship for small business and workforce
development; $500,000 shall be available for a grant for Pike
County, Kentucky, for an interpretive development initiative;
$1,000,000 shall be available for a grant to the East Los
Angeles Community Union to develop a facility; $5,000,000
shall be available for a grant to the Southern Kentucky
Tourism Development Association for a regional tourism
promotion initiative; $1,500,000 shall be available for a
grant for Union College, Barbourville, Kentucky, for a
technology and media center; $500,000 shall be available for
a grant to the National Corrections and Law Enforcement
Training and Technology Center, Inc., to work in conjunction
with the Office of Law Enforcement Technology
Commercialization and the Moundsville Economic Development
Council for continued operations of the National Corrections
and Law Enforcement Training and Technology Center, and for
infrastructure improvements associated with this initiative;
$2,000,000 shall be available for a grant for the City of
Paintsville, Kentucky, for a regional arts and tourism
center; $200,000 shall be available for a grant for the
Vandalia Heritage Foundation to fulfill its charter purposes;
$800,000 shall be available for a grant for the Museum of
Science and Industry to develop a Manufacturing Learning
Center; $200,000 shall be available for a grant to Rural
Enterprises, Inc., in Durant, Oklahoma, to continue support
for a resource center for rural businesses; $1,000,000 shall
be available for a grant for Greenpoint Manufacturing and
Design Center to acquire certain properties to develop a
small business incubator facility; $1,000,000 shall be
available for a grant to the Long Island Bay Shore Aquarium
to develop a facility; $200,000 shall be available for a
grant for Old Sturbridge Village's Threshold Project to
develop an arts and tourism facility; $1,300,000 shall be
available for a grant to Pulaski County, Kentucky, for an
emergency training center; $2,000,000 shall be available for
a grant for Promesa Enterprises in the Bronx, New York, to
assist community-based businesses; $1,000,000 shall be
available for a grant to the City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to
develop a center to support technology and economic
development initiatives; $1,000,000 shall be available for a
grant for the Safer Foundation to develop a facility;
$250,000 shall be available for a grant for the Johnstown
Area Regional Industries Center for a Workforce Development
initiative; $600,000 shall be available for a grant for the
Buckhorn Children's Foundation for a community-based youth
development facility; $250,000 shall be available for a grant
for the Johnstown Area Regional Industries Center to continue
support for the Entrepreneur Challenge 2000 small business
incubator initiative; $250,000 shall be available for a grant
to the Business Development Assistance Group to establish an
Entrepreneurship Center for New Americans in Northern
Virginia; $1,000,000 shall be available for a grant for the
Brotherhood Business Development and Capital Fund for a small
business technical assistance and loan program; $900,000
shall be available for a grant for the Arizona Department of
Public Safety for planning and design for infrastructure
improvements; $250,000 shall be available for a grant for
Gadsden State Community College to develop a Center for
Economic Development; $2,000,000 shall be available for a
grant to Morehead State University for a science research and
technology center; $350,000 shall be available for a grant
for the Nicholas County, Kentucky, Industrial Authority to
acquire certain properties in Carlisle, Kentucky, to develop
a small business initiative; $350,000 shall be available for
a grant for Montgomery County, Kentucky, to develop an
education and training facility; $500,000 shall be available
for a grant to the New York City Department of Parks and
Recreation, Bronx County, to develop a river house facility;
$500,000 shall be available for a grant to the New York
Public Library Mott Haven Branch in the Bronx, New York, to
develop a facility; and $500,000 shall be available for a
grant to the Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology
Education for a technology-based pilot program for vocational
training for economic and job development.
Sec. 634. None of the funds provided in this or any
previous Act, or hereinafter made available to the Department
of Commerce shall be available to issue or renew, for any
fishing vessel, any general or harpoon category fishing
permit for Atlantic bluefin tuna that would allow the
vessel--
(1) to use an aircraft to locate, or otherwise assist in
fishing for, catching, or possessing Atlantic bluefin tuna;
or
(2) to fish for, catch, or possessing Atlantic bluefin tuna
located by the use of an aircraft.
Sec. 635. (a) This section may be cited as ``Amy Boyer's
Law''.
(b) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The inappropriate display, sale, or use of social
security numbers is a significant factor in a growing range
of illegal activities, including fraud, identity theft, and,
in some cases, stalking and other violent crimes.
(2) Because social security numbers are used to track
financial, health care, and other sensitive information about
individuals, the inappropriate sale or display of those
numbers to the general public can result in serious invasions
of individual privacy and facilitate the commission of
criminal activity.
[[Page 24629]]
(3) The Federal Government requires virtually every
individual in the United States to obtain and maintain a
social security number in order to pay taxes, to qualify for
social security benefits, or to seek employment. An
unintended consequence of these requirements is that social
security numbers have become tools that can be used to
facilitate crime, fraud, and invasions of the privacy of the
individuals to whom the numbers are assigned. Because the
Federal Government created and maintains the social security
number system, and because the Federal Government does not
permit persons to exempt themselves from the requirements of
that system, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to
take steps to stem abuse of the system.
(4) A social security number is simply a sequence of
numbers. In no meaningful sense can the number itself impart
knowledge or ideas. Persons do not sell or transfer such
numbers in order to convey any particularized message, nor to
express to the purchaser any ideas, knowledge, or thoughts.
(5) No one should seek to profit from the display or sale
to the general public of social security numbers in
circumstances that create a substantial risk of physical,
emotional, or financial harm to the individuals to whom those
numbers are assigned.
(6) Various entities may display, sell, or use social
security numbers, including the private sector, the Federal
Government and State governments, and Federal and State
courts. Whatever the source, the inappropriate display or
sale to the general public of social security numbers should
be prevented.
(7) Congress should enact legislation that will offer an
individual assigned a social security number necessary
protection from the display, sale, or purchase of the number
in circumstances that might facilitate unlawful conduct or
that might otherwise likely result in unfair and deceptive
practices.
(c)(1) Part A of title XI of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``prohibition of certain misuses of the social security number
``Sec. 1150A. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this
section, no person may display or sell to the general public
any individual's social security number, or any identifiable
derivative of such number, without the affirmatively
expressed consent, electronically or in writing, of the
individual.
``(b) No person may obtain any individual's social security
number, or any identifiable derivative of such number, for
purposes of locating or identifying an individual with the
intent to physically injure, harm, or use the identity of the
individual for illegal purposes.
``(c) In order for consent to exist under subsection (a),
the person displaying, or seeking to display, or selling or
attempting to sell, an individual's social security number,
or any identifiable derivative of such number, shall--
``(1) inform the individual of the general purposes for
which the number will be utilized and the types of persons to
whom the number may be available; and
``(2) obtain affirmatively expressed consent electronically
or in writing.
``(d) Except as set forth in subsection (b), nothing in
this section shall be construed to prohibit or limit the
display, sale, or use of a social security number--
``(1)(A) permitted, required, or excepted, expressly or by
implication, under section 205(c)(2), section 7(a)(2) of the
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a note; 88 Stat. 1909),
section 6109(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), title V
of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.), or
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-191; 110 Stat. 1936) or the amendments
made by that Act, or (B) in connection with an activity
authorized under or pursuant to section 4(k) of the Bank
Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)), whether or
not such activity is conducted by or subject to any
limitations or requirements applicable to a financial holding
company;
``(2) by a professional or commercial user who
appropriately uses the information in the normal course and
scope of their businesses for purposes of retrieval of other
information, except that the professional or commercial user
may not display or sell the number (or any identifiable
derivative of the number) to the general public;
``(3) for purposes of law enforcement, including
investigation of fraud or as required under subchapter II of
chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, and chapter 2 of
title I of Public Law 91-508 (12 U.S.C. 1951-1959); or
``(4) that may appear in a public record including, but not
limited to, proceedings or records of Federal or State
courts.
``(e)(1) Any individual aggrieved by any act of any person
in violation of this section may bring a civil action in a
United States district court to recover--
``(A) such preliminary and equitable relief as the court
determines to be appropriate; and
``(B) the greater of--
``(i) actual damages;
``(ii) liquidated damages of $2,500; or
``(iii) in the case of a violation that was willful and
resulted in profit or monetary gain, liquidated damages of
$10,000.
``(2) In the case of a civil action brought under paragraph
(1)(B)(iii) in which the aggrieved individual has
substantially prevailed, the court may assess against the
respondent a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation
costs and expenses (including expert fees) reasonably
incurred.
``(3) No action may be commenced under this subsection more
than 3 years after the date on which the violation was or
should reasonably have been discovered by the aggrieved
individual.
``(4) The remedy provided under this subsection shall be in
addition to any other lawful remedy available to the
individual.
``(f)(1) Any person who the Commissioner of Social Security
determines has violated this section shall be subject, in
addition to any other penalties that may be prescribed by
law, to--
``(A) a civil money penalty of not more than $5,000 for
each such violation; and
``(B) a civil money penalty of not more than $50,000, if
violations have occurred with such frequency as to constitute
a general business practice.
``(2) Any willful violation committed contemporaneously
with respect to the social security numbers of 2 or more
individuals by means of mail, telecommunication, or otherwise
shall be treated as a separate violation with respect to each
such individual.
``(3) The provisions of section 1128A (other than
subsections (a), (b), (f), (h), (i), (j), and (m), and the
first sentence of subsection (c)) and the provisions of
subsections (d) and (e) of section 205 shall apply to civil
money penalties under this subsection in the same manner as
such provisions apply to a penalty or proceeding under
section 1128A(a), except that, for purposes of this
paragraph, any reference in section 1128A to the Secretary
shall be deemed a reference to the Commissioner of Social
Security.
``(g) In this section, the term `display or sell to the
general public' means the intentional placing of an
individual's social security number, or identifying portion
thereof, in a viewable manner on a web site that makes such
information available to the general public, or otherwise
intentionally communicating an individual's social security
number, or an identifying portion thereof, to the general
public.
``(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit
the use of social security numbers by the Federal Government
for governmental purposes, including any of the following
purposes:
``(1) National security.
``(2) Law enforcement.
``(3) Public health.
``(4) Federal or federally-funded research conducted for
the purposes of advancing knowledge.
``(5) When such numbers are required to be submitted as
part of the process for applying for any type of government
benefit or program.''.
(2) Section 208(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
408(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (8), the following new
paragraphs:
``(9) except as provided in section 1150A(d), knowingly and
willfully displays or sells to the general public (as defined
in section 1150A(g)) any individual's social security number,
or any identifiable derivative of such number, without the
affirmatively expressed consent (as defined in section
1150A(c)), electronically or in writing, of such individual;
or
``(10) obtains any individual's social security number, or
any identifiable derivative of such number, for purposes of
locating or identifying an individual with the intent to
physically injure, harm, or use the identity of the
individual for illegal purposes;''.
(3) The amendments made by this subsection apply with
respect to violations occurring on and after the date that is
2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d)(1) The Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a study of the feasibility and advisability of
imposing additional limitations or prohibitions on the use of
social security numbers in public records.
(2) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this section, the Comptroller General shall submit to
Congress a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1).
The report shall include a detailed description of the
activities and results of the study and such recommendations
for legislative action as the Comptroller General considers
appropriate.
Sec. 636. The Cuyahoga Valley National Park shall not be
redesignated as a Class I area under title I, Part C of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 7470-7479.
TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
drug diversion control fee account
(rescission)
Amounts otherwise available for obligation in fiscal year
2001 for the Drug Diversion Control Fee Account are reduced
by $8,000,000.
RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
maritime guaranteed loan (title xi) program account
(rescission)
Of the funds provided under this heading in Public Law 104-
208, $7,644,000 are rescinded.
TITLE VIII--DEBT REDUCTION
and other matter
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of the Public Debt
gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt
For deposit on November 1, 2000, of an additional amount
into the account established
[[Page 24630]]
under section 3113(d) of title 31, United States Code, to
reduce the public debt, the amount equal to the difference
between $240,088,000,000 and the aggregate amount deposited
into this account in other appropriation Acts for fiscal year
2001 enacted before such date.
general provision
Sec. 801. Beginning on the first day of the 107th Congress,
the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall apply all of the
precedents of the Senate under Rule XXVIII in effect at the
conclusion of the 103rd Congress. Further that there is now
in effect a standing order of the Senate that the reading of
conference reports, are no longer required, if the said
conference report is available in the Senate.
TITLE IX--WILDLIFE, OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSERVATION
SEC. 901. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION PLANNING.
For expenses necessary to support activities that
supplement, but not replace, existing funding available to
the States and territories from the sport fish restoration
account and wildlife restoration account and shall be used
for the development, revision, and implementation of wildlife
conservation and restoration plans and programs, $50,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That these
funds may be used by a State, territory or an Indian Tribe
for the planning and implementation of its wildlife
conservation and restoration program and wildlife
conservation strategy, including wildlife conservation,
wildlife conservation education, and wildlife-associated
recreation projects: Provided further, That the Secretary,
after deducting administrative expenses shall make the
following apportionment from the Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Account: (A) to the District of Columbia and to
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each a sum equal to not more
than one-half of 1 percent thereof; (B) to Guam, American
Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, each a sum equal to not more than
one-fourth of 1 percent thereof: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall apportion the remaining amount in the
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account for each year
among the States in the following manner: (A) one-third of
which is based on the ratio to which the land area of such
State bears to the total land area of all such States; and,
(B) two-thirds of which is based on the ratio to which the
population of such State bears to the total population of all
such States: Provided further, That the amounts apportioned
under this paragraph shall be adjusted equitably so that no
State shall be apportioned a sum which is less than 1 percent
of the amount available for apportionment under this
paragraph for any fiscal year or more than 5 percent of such
amount: Provided further, That no State, territory or other
jurisdiction shall receive a grant unless it has certified to
the Service that it has in place, or has agreed to develop by
a mutually agreed date certain, a wildlife conservation
strategy and plan.
SEC. 902. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(1) to extend financial and technical assistance to the
States under the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act for
the benefit of a diverse array of wildlife and associated
habitats, including species that are not hunted or fished, to
fulfill unmet needs of wildlife within the States in
recognition of the primary role of the States to conserve all
wildlife;
(2) to assure sound conservation policies through the
development, revision, and implementation of a comprehensive
wildlife conservation and restoration plan;
(3) to encourage State fish and wildlife agencies to
participate with the Federal Government, other State
agencies, wildlife conservation organizations and outdoor
recreation and conservation interests through cooperative
planning and implementation of this title; and
(4) to encourage State fish and wildlife agencies to
provide for public involvement in the process of development
and implementation of a wildlife conservation and restoration
program.
(b) Reference to Law.--In this section, the term ``Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act'' means the Act of September
2, 1937 (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), commonly referred to as the
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act or the Pittman-
Robertson Act.
(c) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
``As used in this Act--
``(1) the term `conservation' means the use of methods and
procedures necessary or desirable to sustain healthy
populations of wildlife, including all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research,
census, monitoring of populations, acquisition, improvement
and management of habitat, live trapping and transplantation,
wildlife damage management, and periodic or total protection
of a species or population, as well as the taking of
individuals within wildlife stock or population if permitted
by applicable State and Federal law;
``(2) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the
Interior;
``(3) the term `State fish and game department' or `State
fish and wildlife department' means any department or
division of department of another name, or commission, or
official or officials, of a State empowered under its laws to
exercise the functions ordinarily exercised by a State fish
and game department or State fish and wildlife department.
``(4) the term `wildlife' means any species of wild, free-
ranging fauna including fish, and also fauna in captive
breeding programs the object of which is to reintroduce
individuals of a depleted indigenous species into previously
occupied range;
``(5) the term `wildlife-associated recreation' means
projects intended to meet the demand for outdoor activities
associated with wildlife including, but not limited to,
hunting and fishing, wildlife observation and photography,
such projects as construction or restoration of wildlife
viewing areas, observation towers, blinds, platforms, land
and water trails, water access, field trialing, trail heads,
and access for such projects;
``(6) the term `wildlife conservation and restoration
program' means a program developed by a State fish and
wildlife department and approved by the Secretary under
section 304(d), the projects that constitute such a program,
which may be implemented in whole or part through grants and
contracts by a State to other State, Federal, or local
agencies (including those that gather, evaluate, and
disseminate information on wildlife and their habitats),
wildlife conservation organizations, and outdoor recreation
and conservation education entities from funds apportioned
under this title, and maintenance of such projects;
``(7) the term `wildlife conservation education' means
projects, including public outreach, intended to foster
responsible natural resource stewardship; and
``(8) the term `wildlife-restoration project' includes the
wildlife conservation and restoration program and means the
selection, restoration, rehabilitation, and improvement of
areas of land or water adaptable as feeding, resting, or
breeding places for wildlife, including acquisition of such
areas or estates or interests therein as are suitable or
capable of being made suitable therefor, and the construction
thereon or therein of such works as may be necessary to make
them available for such purposes and also including such
research into problems of wildlife management as may be
necessary to efficient administration affecting wildlife
resources, and such preliminary or incidental costs and
expenses as may be incurred in and about such projects.''.
(d) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account.--Section
3 of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C.
669b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)'',
and by adding at the end the following:
``(2) There is established in the Federal aid to wildlife
restoration fund a subaccount to be known as the `Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Account'. There are authorized
to be appropriated for the purposes of the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Account $50,000,000 in fiscal
year 2001 for apportionment in accordance with this Act to
carry out State wildlife conservation and restoration
programs. Further, interest on amounts transferred shall be
treated in a manner consistent with 16 U.S.C. 669(b)(1)).'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c)(1) Amounts transferred to the Wildlife Conservation
and Restoration Account shall supplement, but not replace,
existing funds available to the States from the sport fish
restoration account and wildlife restoration account and
shall be used for the development, revision, and
implementation of wildlife conservation and restoration
programs and should be used to address the unmet needs for a
diverse array of wildlife and associated habitats, including
species that are not hunted or fished, for wildlife
conservation, wildlife conservation education, and wildlife-
associated recreation projects. Such funds may be used for
new programs and projects as well as to enhance existing
programs and projects.
``(2) Funds may be used by a State or an Indian tribe for
the planning and implementation of its wildlife conservation
and restoration program and wildlife conservation strategy,
as provided in sections 4(d) and (e) of this Act, including
wildlife conservation, wildlife conservation education, and
wildlife-associated recreation projects. Such funds may be
used for new programs and projects as well as to enhance
existing programs and projects.
``(3) Priority for funding from the Wildlife Conservation
and Restoration Account shall be for those species with the
greatest conservation need as defined by the State wildlife
conservation and restoration program.
``(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this
section, with respect to amounts transferred to the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Account, so much of such amounts
apportioned to any State for any fiscal year as remains
unexpended at the close thereof shall remain available for
obligation in that State until the close of the second
succeeding fiscal year.''.
(e) Apportionments of Amounts.--Section 4 of the Federal
Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Apportionment of Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Account.--
``(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall make the
following apportionment from the Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Account:
``(A) to the District of Columbia and to the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, each a sum equal to not more than one-half of
1 percent thereof;
``(B) to Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, each a sum
equal to not more than one-fourth of 1 percent thereof.
``(2)(A) The Secretary of the Interior, after making the
apportionment under paragraph (1),
[[Page 24631]]
shall apportion the remaining amount in the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Account for each fiscal year
among the States in the following manner:
``(i) one-third of which is based on the ratio to which the
land area of such State bears to the total land area of all
such States; and
``(ii) two-thirds of which is based on the ratio to which
the population of such State bears to the total population of
all such States.
``(B) The amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be
adjusted equitably so that no such State shall be apportioned
a sum which is less than one percent of the amount available
for apportionment under this paragraph for any fiscal year or
more than five percent of such amount.
``(3) Of the amounts transferred to the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Account, not to exceed 3 percent
shall be available for any Federal expenses incurred in the
administration and execution of programs carried out with
such amounts.
``(d) Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Programs.--
``(1) Any State, through its fish and wildlife department,
may apply to the Secretary of the Interior for approval of a
wildlife conservation and restoration program, or for funds
from the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account, to
develop a program. To apply, a State shall submit a
comprehensive plan that includes--
``(A) provisions vesting in the fish and wildlife
department of the State overall responsibility and
accountability for the program;
``(B) provisions for the development and implementation
of--
``(i) wildlife conservation projects that expand and
support existing wildlife programs, giving appropriate
consideration to all wildlife;
``(ii) wildlife-associated recreation projects; and
``(iii) wildlife conservation education projects pursuant
to programs under section 8(a); and
``(C) provisions to ensure public participation in the
development, revision, and implementation of projects and
programs required under this paragraph.
``(D) Wildlife conservation strategy.--Within five years of
the date of the initial apportionment, develop and begin
implementation of a wildlife conservation strategy based upon
the best available and appropriate scientific information and
data that--
``(i) uses such information on the distribution and
abundance of species of wildlife, including low population
and declining species as the State fish and wildlife
department deems appropriate, that are indicative of the
diversity and health of wildlife of the State;
``(ii) identifies the extent and condition of wildlife
habitats and community types essential to conservation of
species identified under paragraph (1);
``(iii) identifies the problems which may adversely affect
the species identified under paragraph (1) or their habitats,
and provides for priority research and surveys to identify
factors which may assist in restoration and more effective
conservation of such species and their habitats;
``(iv) determines those actions which should be taken to
conserve the species identified under paragraph (1) and their
habitats and establishes priorities for implementing such
conservation actions;
``(v) provides for periodic monitoring of species
identified under paragraph (1) and their habitats and the
effectiveness of the conservation actions determined under
paragraph (4), and for adapting conservation actions as
appropriate to respond to new information or changing
conditions;
``(vi) provides for the review of the State wildlife
conservation strategy and, if appropriate, revision at
intervals of not more than ten years;
``(vii) provides for coordination to the extent feasible
the State fish and wildlife department, during the
development, implementation, review, and revision of the
wildlife conservation strategy, with Federal, State, and
local agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant
areas of land or water within the State, or administer
programs that significantly affect the conservation of
species identified under paragraph (1) or their habitats.
``(2) A State shall provide an opportunity for public
participation in the development of the comprehensive plan
required under paragraph (1).
``(3) If the Secretary finds that the comprehensive plan
submitted by a State complies with paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall approve the wildlife conservation and
restoration program of the State and set aside from the
apportionment to the State made pursuant to subsection (c) an
amount that shall not exceed 75 percent of the estimated cost
of developing and implementing the program.
``(4)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), after the
Secretary approves a State's wildlife conservation and
restoration program, the Secretary may make payments on a
project that is a segment of the State's wildlife
conservation and restoration program as the project
progresses. Such payments, including previous payments on the
project, if any, shall not be more than the United States pro
rata share of such project. The Secretary, under such
regulations as he may prescribe, may advance funds
representing the United States pro rata share of a project
that is a segment of a wildlife conservation and restoration
program, including funds to develop such program.
``(B) Not more than 10 percent of the amounts apportioned
to each State under this section for a State's wildlife
conservation and restoration program may be used for
wildlife-associated recreation.
``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `State'
shall include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
(f) FACA.--Coordination with State fish and wildlife agency
personnel or with personnel of other State agencies pursuant
to the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act or the Federal
Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act shall not be subject to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). Except for
the preceding sentence, the provisions of this title relate
solely to wildlife conservation and restoration programs and
shall not be construed to affect the provisions of the
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act relating to wildlife
restoration projects or the provisions of the Federal Aid in
Sport Fish Restoration Act relating to fish restoration and
management projects.
(g) Education.--Section 8(a) of the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669g(a)) is amended by adding the
following at the end thereof: ``Funds from the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Account may be used for a
wildlife conservation education program, except that no such
funds may be used for education efforts, projects, or
programs that promote or encourage opposition to the
regulated taking of wildlife.''.
(h) Prohibition Against Diversion.--No designated State
agency shall be eligible to receive matching funds under this
title if sources of revenue available to it after January 1,
2000, for conservation of wildlife are diverted for any
purpose other than the administration of the designated State
agency, it being the intention of Congress that funds
available to States under this title be added to revenues
from existing State sources and not serve as a substitute for
revenues from such sources. Such revenues shall include
interest, dividends, or other income earned on the foregoing.
(i) North American Wetlands Conservation Act.--Section 7(c)
of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.
4406(c)) is amended by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting
``$50,000,000''.
SEC. 903. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE.
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 31. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE.
``Nothing in this section shall be construed as a permanent
authorization.
``(a) Definitions.--When used in this section--
``(1) The term `coastal political subdivision' means a
county, parish, or any equivalent subdivision of a Producing
Coastal State all or part of which subdivision lies within
the coastal zone (as defined in section 304(1) of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453(1)).
``(2) The term `coastal population' means the population of
all political subdivisions, as determined by the most recent
official data of the Census Bureau, contained in whole or in
part within the designated coastal boundary of a State as
defined in a State's coastal zone management program under
the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).
``(3) The term `Coastal State' has the same meaning as
provided by subsection 304(4) of the Coastal Zone Management
Act (16 U.S.C. 1453(4)).
``(4) The term `coastline' has the same meaning as the term
`coast line' as defined in subsection 2(c) of the Submerged
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301(c)).
``(5) The term `distance' means minimum great circle
distance, measured in statute miles.
``(6) The term `leased tract' means a tract maintained
under section 6 or leased under section 8 for the purpose of
drilling for, developing, and producing oil and natural gas
resources.
``(7) The term `Producing Coastal State' means a Coastal
State with a coastal seaward boundary within 200 miles from
the geographic center of a leased tract other than a leased
tract within any area of the Outer Continental Shelf where a
moratorium on new leasing was in effect as of January 1,
2000, unless the lease was issued prior to the establishment
of the moratorium and was in production on January 1, 2000.
``(8) The term `qualified Outer Continental Shelf revenues'
means all amounts received by the United States from each
leased tract or portion of a leased tract lying seaward of
the zone defined and governed by section 8(g) of this Act, or
lying within such zone but to which section 8(g) does not
apply, the geographic center of which lies within a distance
of 200 miles from any part of the coastline of any Coastal
State, including bonus bids, rents, royalties (including
payments for royalties taken in kind and sold), net profit
share payments, and related late payment interest. Such term
does not include any revenues from a leased tract or portion
of a leased tract that is included within any area of the
Outer Continental Shelf where a moratorium on new leasing was
in effect as of January 1, 2000, unless the lease was issued
prior to the establishment of the moratorium and was in
production on January 1, 2000.
``(9) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Commerce.
``(b) Authorization.--For fiscal year 2001, $150,000,000 is
authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of this
section.
``(c) Impact Assistance Payments to States and Political
Subdivisions.--The Secretary shall make payments from the
amounts available under this section to Producing Coastal
States with an approved Coastal Impact Assistance Plan, and
to coastal political subdivisions as follows:
[[Page 24632]]
``(1) Allocations to producing coastal states.--In each
fiscal year, each Producing Coastal State's allocable share
shall be equal to the sum of the following:
``(A) 60 percent of the amounts appropriated shall be
equally divided among all Producing Coastal States;
``(B) 40 percent of the amounts appropriated for the
purposes of this section shall be divided among Producing
Coastal States based on Outer Continental Shelf production,
except that of such amounts no Producing Coastal State may
receive more than 25 percent in any fiscal year.
``(2) Calculation.--The amount for each Producing Coastal
State under paragraph (1)(B) shall be calculated based on the
ratio of qualified OCS revenues generated off the coastline
of the Producing Coastal State to the qualified OCS revenues
generated off the coastlines of all Producing Coastal States
for the period beginning on January 1, 1995 and ending on
December 31, 2000. Where there is more than one Producing
Coastal State within 200 miles of a leased tract, the amount
of each Producing Coastal State's payment under paragraph
(1)(B) for such leased tract shall be inversely proportional
to the distance between the nearest point on the coastline of
such State and the geographic center of each leased tract or
portion of the leased tract (to the nearest whole mile) that
is within 200 miles of that coastline, as determined by the
Secretary. A leased tract or portion of a leased tract shall
be excluded if the tract or portion is located in a
geographic area where a moratorium on new leasing was in
effect on January 1, 2000, unless the lease was issued prior
to the establishment of the moratorium and was in production
on January 1, 2000.
``(3) Payments to coastal political subdivisions.--Thirty-
five percent of each Producing Coastal State's allocable
share as determined under paragraph (1) shall be paid
directly to the coastal political subdivisions by the
Secretary based on the following formula, except that a
coastal political subdivision in the State of California that
has a coastal shoreline, that is not within 200 miles of the
geographic center of a leased tract or portion of a leased
tract, and in which there is located one or more oil
refineries shall be eligible for that portion of the
allocation described in paragraph (C) in the same manner as
if that political subdivision were located within a distance
of 50 miles from the geographic center of the closest leased
tract with qualified Outer Continental Shelf revenues:
``(A) 25 percent shall be allocated based on the ratio of
such coastal political subdivision's coastal population to
the coastal population of all coastal political subdivisions
in the Producing Coastal State.
``(B) 25 percent shall be allocated based on the ratio of
such coastal political subdivision's coastline miles to the
coastline miles of all coastal political subdivisions in the
Producing Coastal State.
``(C) 50 percent shall be allocated based on the relative
distance of such coastal political subdivision from any
leased tract used to calculate that Producing Coastal State's
allocation using ratios that are inversely proportional to
the distance between the point in the coastal political
subdivision closest to the geographic center of each leased
tract or portion, as determined by the Secretary. For
purposes of the calculations under this subparagraph, a
leased tract or portion of a leased tract shall be excluded
if the leased tract or portion is located in a geographic
area where a moratorium on new leasing was in effect on
January 1, 2000, unless the lease was issued prior to the
establishment of the moratorium and was in production on
January 1, 2000.
``(4) Failure to have plan approved.--Any amount allocated
to a Producing Coastal State or coastal political subdivision
but not disbursed because of a failure to have an approved
Coastal Impact Assistance Plan under this section shall be
allocated equally by the Secretary among all other Producing
Coastal States in a manner consistent with this subsection
except that the Secretary shall hold in escrow such amount
until the final resolution of any appeal regarding the
disapproval of a plan submitted under this section. The
Secretary may waive the provisions of this paragraph and hold
a Producing Coastal State's allocable share in escrow if the
Secretary determines that such State is making a good faith
effort to develop and submit, or update, a Coastal Impact
Assistance Plan.
``(d) Coastal Impact Assistance Plan.--
``(1) Development and submission of state plans.--The
Governor of each Producing Coastal State shall prepare, and
submit to the Secretary, a Coastal Impact Assistance Plan.
The Governor shall solicit local input and shall provide for
public participation in the development of the plan. The plan
shall be submitted to the Secretary by July 1, 2001. Amounts
received by Producing Coastal States and coastal political
subdivisions may be used only for the purposes specified in
the Producing Coastal State's Coastal Impact Assistance Plan.
``(2) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve a plan under
paragraph (1) prior to disbursement of amounts under this
section. The Secretary shall approve the plan if the
Secretary determines that the plan is consistent with the
uses set forth in subsection (e) and if the plan contains
each of the following:
``(A) The name of the State agency that will have the
authority to represent and act for the State in dealing with
the Secretary for purposes of this section.
``(B) A program for the implementation of the plan which
describes how the amounts provided under this section will be
used.
``(C) A contact for each political subdivision and
description of how coastal political subdivisions will use
amounts provided under this section, including a
certification by the Governor that such uses are consistent
with the requirements of this section.
``(D) Certification by the Governor that ample opportunity
has been accorded for public participation in the development
and revision of the plan.
``(E) Measures for taking into account other relevant
Federal resources and programs.
``(3) Procedure.--The Secretary shall approve or disapprove
each plan or amendment within 90 days of its submission.
``(4) Amendment.--Any amendment to the plan shall be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of this
subsection and shall be submitted to the Secretary for
approval or disapproval.
``(e) Authorized Uses.--Producing Coastal States and
coastal political subdivisions shall use amounts provided
under this section, including any such amounts deposited in a
State or coastal political subdivision administered trust
fund dedicated to uses consistent with this subsection, in
compliance with Federal and State law and only for one or
more of the following purposes:
``(1) uses set forth in new section 32(c)(4) of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) proposed
by the amendment to H.R. 701 of the 106th Congress as
reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources;
``(2) projects and activities for the conservation,
protection or restoration of wetlands;
``(3) mitigating damage to fish, wildlife or natural
resources, including such activities authorized under
subtitle B of title IV of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33
U.S.C. 1321(c), (d));
``(4) planning assistance and administrative costs of
complying with the provisions of this section;
``(5) implementation of Federally approved marine, coastal,
or comprehensive conservation management plans; and
``(6) mitigating impacts of Outer Continental Shelf
activities through funding of (A) onshore infrastructure
projects and (B) other public service needs intended to
mitigate the environmental effects of Outer Continental Shelf
activities: Provided, That funds made available under this
paragraph shall not exceed 23 percent of the funds provided
under this section.
``(f) Compliance With Authorized Uses.--If the Secretary
determines that any expenditure made by a Producing Coastal
State or coastal political subdivision is not consistent with
the uses authorized in subsection (e), the Secretary shall
not disburse any further amounts under this section to that
Producing Coastal State or coastal political subdivision
until the amounts used for the inconsistent expenditure have
been repaid or obligated for authorized uses.''.
TITLE X--LOCAL TV ACT
SECTION 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Launching Our Communities'
Access to Local Television Act of 2000''.
SEC. 1002. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to facilitate access, on a
technologically neutral basis and by December 31, 2006, to
signals of local television stations for households located
in nonserved areas and underserved areas.
SEC. 1003. LOCAL TELEVISION LOAN GUARANTEE BOARD.
(a) Establishment.--There is established the LOCAL
Television Loan Guarantee Board (in this Act referred to as
the ``Board'').
(b) Members.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Board shall
consist of the following members:
(A) The Secretary of the Treasury, or the designee of the
Secretary.
(B) The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, or the designee of the Chairman.
(C) The Secretary of Agriculture, or the designee of the
Secretary.
(D) The Secretary of Commerce, or the designee of the
Secretary.
(2) Requirement as to designees.--An individual may not be
designated a member of the Board under paragraph (1) unless
the individual is an officer of the United States pursuant to
an appointment by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
(c) Functions of the Board.--
(1) In general.--The Board shall determine whether or not
to approve loan guarantees under this Act. The Board shall
make such determinations consistent with the purpose of this
Act and in accordance with this subsection and section 4.
(2) Consultation authorized.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out its functions under this
Act, the Board shall consult with such departments and
agencies of the Federal Government as the Board considers
appropriate, including the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Treasury,
the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior,
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the
Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
(B) Response.--A department or agency consulted by the
Board under subparagraph (A) shall provide the Board such
expertise and assistance as the Board requires to carry out
its functions under this Act.
(3) Approval by majority vote.--The determination of the
Board to approve a loan guarantee under this Act shall be by
an affirmative vote of not less than 3 members of the Board.
[[Page 24633]]
SEC. 1004. APPROVAL OF LOAN GUARANTEES.
(a) Authority To Approve Loan Guarantees.--Subject to the
provisions of this section and consistent with the purpose of
this Act, the Board may approve loan guarantees under this
Act.
(b) Regulations.--
(1) Requirements.--The Administrator (as defined in section
5), under the direction of and for approval by the Board,
shall prescribe regulations to implement the provisions of
this Act and shall do so not later than 120 days after funds
authorized to be appropriated under section 11 have been
appropriated in a bill signed into law.
(2) Elements.--The regulations prescribed under paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) set forth the form of any application to be submitted
to the Board under this Act;
(B) set forth time periods for the review and consideration
by the Board of applications to be submitted to the Board
under this Act, and for any other action to be taken by the
Board with respect to such applications;
(C) provide appropriate safeguards against the evasion of
the provisions of this Act;
(D) set forth the circumstances in which an applicant,
together with any affiliate of an applicant, shall be treated
as an applicant for a loan guarantee under this Act;
(E) include requirements that appropriate parties submit to
the Board any documents and assurances that are required for
the administration of the provisions of this Act; and
(F) include such other provisions consistent with the
purpose of this Act as the Board considers appropriate.
(3) Construction.--(A) Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to prohibit the Board from requiring, to the extent
and under circumstances considered appropriate by the Board,
that affiliates of an applicant be subject to certain
obligations of the applicant as a condition to the approval
or maintenance of a loan guarantee under this Act.
(B) If any provision of this Act or the application of such
provision to any person or entity or circumstance is held to
be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision
to such person or entity or circumstance other than those as
to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
(c) Authority Limited by Appropriations Acts.--The Board
may approve loan guarantees under this Act only to the extent
provided for in advance in appropriations Acts, and the Board
may accept credit risk premiums from a non-Federal source in
order to cover the cost of a loan guarantee under this Act,
to the extent that appropriations of budget authority are
insufficient to cover such costs.
(d) Requirements and Criteria Applicable to Approval.--
(1) In general.--The Board shall utilize the underwriting
criteria developed under subsection (g), and any relevant
information provided by the departments and agencies with
which the Board consults under section 3, to determine which
loans may be eligible for a loan guarantee under this Act.
(2) Prerequisites.--In addition to meeting the underwriting
criteria under paragraph (1), a loan may not be guaranteed
under this Act unless--
(A) the loan is made to finance the acquisition,
improvement, enhancement, construction, deployment, launch,
or rehabilitation of the means by which local television
broadcast signals will be delivered to a nonserved area or
underserved area;
(B) the proceeds of the loan will not be used for
operating, advertising, or promotion expenses, or for the
acquisition of licenses for the use of spectrum in any
competitive bidding under section 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j));
(C) the proposed project, as determined by the Board in
consultation with the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, is not likely to have a
substantial adverse impact on competition that outweighs the
benefits of improving access to the signals of a local
television station in a nonserved area or underserved area
and is commercially viable;
(D)(i) the loan--
(I) is provided by any entity engaged in the business of
commercial lending--
(aa) if the loan is made in accordance with loan-to-one-
borrower and affiliate transaction restrictions to which the
entity is subject under applicable law; or
(bb) if item (aa) does not apply, the loan is made only to
a borrower that is not an affiliate of the entity and only if
the amount of the loan and all outstanding loans by that
entity to that borrower and any of its affiliates does not
exceed 10 percent of the net equity of the entity; or
(II) is provided by a nonprofit corporation, including the
National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation,
engaged primarily in commercial lending, if the Board
determines that such nonprofit corporation has one or more
issues of outstanding long-term debt that is rated within the
highest 3 rating categories of a nationally recognized
statistical rating organization;
(ii) if the loan is provided by a lender described in
clause (i)(II) and the Board determines that the making of
the loan by such lender will cause a decline in such lender's
debt rating as described in that clause, the Board at its
discretion may disapprove the loan guarantee on this basis;
(iii) no loan may be made for purposes of this Act by a
governmental entity or affiliate thereof, or by the Federal
Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, or any institution
supervised by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight, the Federal Housing Finance Board, or any
affiliate of such entities;
(iv) any loan must have terms, in the judgment of the
Board, that are consistent in material respects with the
terms of similar obligations in the private capital market;
(v) for purposes of clause (i)(I)(bb), the term ``net
equity'' means the value of the total assets of the entity,
less the total liabilities of the entity, as recorded under
generally accepted accounting principles for the fiscal
quarter ended immediately prior to the date on which the
subject loan is approved;
(E) repayment of the loan is required to be made within a
term of the lesser of--
(i) 25 years from the date of the execution of the loan; or
(ii) the economically useful life, as determined by the
Board or in consultation with persons or entities deemed
appropriate by the Board, of the primary assets to be used in
the delivery of the signals concerned; and
(F) the loan meets any additional criteria developed under
subsection (g).
(3) Protection of united states financial interests.--The
Board may not approve the guarantee of a loan under this Act
unless--
(A) the Board has been given documentation, assurances, and
access to information, persons, and entities necessary, as
determined by the Board, to address issues relevant to the
review of the loan by the Board for purposes of this Act; and
(B) the Board makes a determination in writing that--
(i) to the best of its knowledge upon due inquiry, the
assets, facilities, or equipment covered by the loan will be
utilized economically and efficiently;
(ii) the terms, conditions, security, and schedule and
amount of repayments of principal and the payment of interest
with respect to the loan protect the financial interests of
the United States and are reasonable;
(iii) the value of collateral provided by an applicant is
at least equal to the unpaid balance of the loan amount
covered by the loan guarantee (the ``Amount'' for purposes of
this clause); and if the value of collateral provided by an
applicant is less than the Amount, the additional required
collateral is provided by any affiliate of the applicant;
(iv) all necessary and required regulatory and other
approvals, spectrum licenses, and delivery permissions have
been received for the loan and the project under the loan;
(v) the loan would not be available on reasonable terms and
conditions without a loan guarantee under this Act; and
(vi) repayment of the loan can reasonably be expected.
(e) Considerations.--
(1) Type of market.--
(A) Priority considerations.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Board shall give priority in the approval of
loan guarantees under this Act in the following order:
(i) First, to projects that will serve households in
nonserved areas. In considering such projects, the Board
shall balance projects that will serve the largest number of
households with projects that will serve remote, isolated
communities (including noncontiguous States) in areas that
are unlikely to be served through market mechanisms.
(ii) Second, to projects that will serve households in
underserved areas. In considering such projects, the Board
shall balance projects that will serve the largest number of
households with projects that will serve remote, isolated
communities (including noncontiguous States) in areas that
are unlikely to be served through market mechanisms.
Within each category, the Board shall consider the project's
estimated cost per household and shall give priority to those
projects that provide the highest quality service at the
lowest cost per household.
(B) Additional consideration.--The Board should give
additional consideration to projects that also provide high-
speed Internet service.
(C) Prohibitions.--The Board may not approve a loan
guarantee under this Act for a project that--
(i) is designed primarily to serve 1 or more of the top 40
designated market areas (as that term is defined in section
122(j) of title 17, United States Code); or
(ii) would alter or remove National Weather Service
warnings from local broadcast signals.
(2) Other considerations.--The Board shall consider other
factors, which shall include projects that would--
(A) offer a separate tier of local broadcast signals, but
for applicable Federal, State, or local laws or regulations;
(B) provide lower projected costs to consumers of such
separate tier; and
(C) enable the delivery of local broadcast signals
consistent with the purpose of this Act by a means reasonably
compatible with existing systems or devices predominantly in
use.
(3) Further consideration.--In implementing this Act, the
Board shall support the use of loan guarantees for projects
that would serve households not likely to be served in the
absence of loan guarantees under this Act.
(f) Guarantee Limits.--
(1) Limitation on aggregate value of loans.--The aggregate
value of all loans for which loan guarantees are issued under
this Act (including the unguaranteed portion of such loans)
may not exceed $1,250,000,000.
[[Page 24634]]
(2) Guarantee level.--A loan guarantee issued under this
Act may not exceed an amount equal to 80 percent of a loan
meeting in its entirety the requirements of subsection
(d)(2)(A). If only a portion of a loan meets the requirements
of that subsection, the Board shall determine that percentage
of the loan meeting such requirements (the ``applicable
portion'') and may issue a loan guarantee in an amount not
exceeding 80 percent of the applicable portion.
(g) Underwriting Criteria.--Within the period provided for
under subsection (b)(1), the Board shall, in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and
an independent public accounting firm, develop underwriting
criteria relating to the guarantee of loans that are
consistent with the purpose of this Act, including
appropriate collateral and cash flow levels for loans
guaranteed under this Act, and such other matters as the
Board considers appropriate.
(h) Credit Risk Premiums.--
(1) Establishment and acceptance.--
(A) In general.--The Board may establish and approve the
acceptance of credit risk premiums with respect to a loan
guarantee under this Act in order to cover the cost, as
defined in section 502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990, of the loan guarantee. To the extent that
appropriations of budget authority are insufficient to cover
the cost, as so determined, of a loan guarantee under this
Act, credit risk premiums shall be accepted from a non-
Federal source under this subsection on behalf of the
applicant for the loan guarantee.
(B) Authority limited by appropriations acts.--Credit risk
premiums under this subsection shall be imposed only to the
extent provided for in advance in appropriations Acts.
(2) Credit risk premium amount.--
(A) In general.--The Board shall determine the amount of
any credit risk premium to be accepted with respect to a loan
guarantee under this Act on the basis of--
(i) the financial and economic circumstances of the
applicant for the loan guarantee, including the amount of
collateral offered;
(ii) the proposed schedule of loan disbursements;
(iii) the business plans of the applicant for providing
service;
(iv) any financial commitment from a broadcast signal
provider; and
(v) the concurrence of the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget as to the amount of the credit risk
premium.
(B) Proportionality.--To the extent that appropriations of
budget authority are sufficient to cover the cost, as
determined under section 502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, of loan guarantees under this Act, the credit
risk premium with respect to each loan guarantee shall be
reduced proportionately.
(C) Payment of premiums.--Credit risk premiums under this
subsection shall be paid to an account (the ``Escrow
Account'') established in the Treasury which shall accrue
interest and such interest shall be retained by the account,
subject to subparagraph (D).
(D) Deductions from escrow account.--If a default occurs
with respect to any loan guaranteed under this Act and the
default is not cured in accordance with the terms of the
underlying loan or loan guarantee agreement, the
Administrator, in accordance with subsections (i) and (j) of
section 5, shall liquidate, or shall cause to be liquidated,
all assets collateralizing such loan as to which it has a
lien or security interest. Any shortfall between the proceeds
of the liquidation net of costs and expenses relating to the
liquidation, and the guarantee amount paid pursuant to this
Act shall be deducted from funds in the Escrow Account and
credited to the Administrator for payment of such shortfall.
At such time as determined under subsection (d)(2)(E) of this
section when all loans guaranteed under this Act have been
repaid or otherwise satisfied in accordance with this Act and
the regulations promulgated hereunder, remaining funds in the
Escrow Account, if any, shall be refunded, on a pro rata
basis, to applicants whose loans guaranteed under this Act
were not in default, or where any default was cured in
accordance with the terms of the underlying loan or loan
guarantee agreement.
(i) Limitations on Guarantees for Certain Cable
Operators.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
no loan guarantee under this Act may be granted or used to
provide funds for a project that extends, upgrades, or
enhances the services provided over any cable system to an
area that, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, is
covered by a cable franchise agreement that expressly
obligates a cable system operator to serve such area.
(j) Judicial Review.--The decision of the Board to approve
or disapprove the making of a loan guarantee under this Act
shall not be subject to judicial review.
(k) Applicability of APA.--Except as otherwise provided in
subsection (j), the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5
and chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code (commonly
referred to as the Administrative Procedure Act), shall apply
to actions taken under this Act.
SEC. 1005. ADMINISTRATION OF LOAN GUARANTEES.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Rural Utilities
Service (in this Act referred to as the ``Administrator'')
shall issue and otherwise administer loan guarantees that
have been approved by the Board in accordance with sections 3
and 4.
(b) Security for Protection of United States Financial
Interests.--
(1) Terms and conditions.--An applicant shall agree to such
terms and conditions as are satisfactory, in the judgment of
the Board, to ensure that, as long as any principal or
interest is due and payable on a loan guaranteed under this
Act, the applicant--
(A) shall maintain assets, equipment, facilities, and
operations on a continuing basis;
(B) shall not make any discretionary dividend payments that
impair its ability to repay obligations guaranteed under this
Act;
(C) shall remain sufficiently capitalized; and
(D) shall submit to, and cooperate fully with, any audit of
the applicant under section 6(a)(2).
(2) Collateral.--
(A) Existence of adequate collateral.--An applicant shall
provide the Board such documentation as is necessary, in the
judgment of the Board, to provide satisfactory evidence that
appropriate and adequate collateral secures a loan guaranteed
under this Act.
(B) Form of collateral.--Collateral required by
subparagraph (A) shall consist solely of assets of the
applicant, any affiliate of the applicant, or both (whichever
the Board considers appropriate), including primary assets to
be used in the delivery of signals for which the loan is
guaranteed.
(C) Review of valuation.--The value of collateral securing
a loan guaranteed under this Act may be reviewed by the
Board, and may be adjusted downward by the Board if the Board
reasonably believes such adjustment is appropriate.
(3) Lien on interests in assets.--Upon the Board's approval
of a loan guarantee under this Act, the Administrator shall
have liens on assets securing the loan, which shall be
superior to all other liens on such assets, and the value of
the assets (based on a determination satisfactory to the
Board) subject to the liens shall be at least equal to the
unpaid balance of the loan amount covered by the loan
guarantee, or that value approved by the Board under section
4(d)(3)(B)(iii).
(4) Perfected security interest.--With respect to a loan
guaranteed under this Act, the Administrator and the lender
shall have a perfected security interest in assets securing
the loan that are fully sufficient to protect the financial
interests of the United States and the lender.
(5) Insurance.--In accordance with practices in the private
capital market, as determined by the Board, the applicant for
a loan guarantee under this Act shall obtain, at its expense,
insurance sufficient to protect the financial interests of
the United States, as determined by the Board.
(c) Assignment of Loan Guarantees.--The holder of a loan
guarantee under this Act may assign the loan guaranteed under
this Act in whole or in part, subject to such requirements as
the Board may prescribe.
(d) Expiration of Loan Guarantee Upon Stripping.--
Notwithstanding subsections (c), (e), and (h), a loan
guarantee under this Act shall have no force or effect if any
part of the guaranteed portion of the loan is transferred
separate and apart from the unguaranteed portion of the loan.
(e) Adjustment.--The Board may approve the adjustment of
any term or condition of a loan guarantee or a loan
guaranteed under this Act, including the rate of interest,
time of payment of principal or interest, or security
requirements only if--
(1) the adjustment is consistent with the financial
interests of the United States;
(2) consent has been obtained from the parties to the loan
agreement;
(3) the adjustment is consistent with the underwriting
criteria developed under section 4(g);
(4) the adjustment does not adversely affect the interest
of the Federal Government in the assets or collateral of the
applicant;
(5) the adjustment does not adversely affect the ability of
the applicant to repay the loan; and
(6) the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration has been consulted by the Board regarding the
adjustment.
(f) Performance Schedules.--
(1) Performance schedules.--An applicant for a loan
guarantee under this Act for a project covered by section
4(e)(1) shall enter into stipulated performance schedules
with the Administrator with respect to the signals to be
provided through the project.
(2) Penalty.--The Administrator may assess against and
collect from an applicant described in paragraph (1) a
penalty not to exceed 3 times the interest due on the
guaranteed loan of the applicant under this Act if the
applicant fails to meet its stipulated performance schedule
under that paragraph.
(g) Compliance.--The Administrator, in cooperation with the
Board and as the regulations of the Board may provide, shall
enforce compliance by an applicant, and any other party to a
loan guarantee for whose benefit assistance under this Act is
intended, with the provisions of this Act, any regulations
under this Act, and the terms and conditions of the loan
guarantee, including through the submittal of such reports
and documents as the Board may require in regulations
prescribed by the Board and through regular periodic
inspections and audits.
(h) Commercial Validity.--A loan guarantee under this Act
shall be incontestable--
(1) in the hands of an applicant on whose behalf the loan
guarantee is made, unless the applicant engaged in fraud or
misrepresentation in securing the loan guarantee; and
(2) as to any person or entity (or their respective
successor in interest) who makes or contracts to make a loan
to the applicant for the
[[Page 24635]]
loan guarantee in reliance thereon, unless such person or
entity (or respective successor in interest) engaged in fraud
or misrepresentation in making or contracting to make such
loan.
(i) Defaults.--The Board shall prescribe regulations
governing defaults on loans guaranteed under this Act,
including the administration of the payment of guaranteed
amounts upon default.
(j) Recovery of Payments.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall be entitled to
recover from an applicant for a loan guarantee under this Act
the amount of any payment made to the holder of the guarantee
with respect to the loan.
(2) Subrogation.--Upon making a payment described in
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall be subrogated to all
rights of the party to whom the payment is made with respect
to the guarantee which was the basis for the payment.
(3) Disposition of property.--
(A) Sale or disposal.--The Administrator shall, in an
orderly and efficient manner, sell or otherwise dispose of
any property or other interests obtained under this Act in a
manner that maximizes taxpayer return and is consistent with
the financial interests of the United States.
(B) Maintenance.--The Administrator shall maintain in a
cost-effective and reasonable manner any property or other
interests pending sale or disposal of such property or other
interests under subparagraph (A).
(k) Action Against Obligor.--
(1) Authority to bring civil action.--The Administrator may
bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the
United States in the name of the United States or of the
holder of the obligation in the event of a default on a loan
guaranteed under this Act. The holder of a loan guarantee
shall make available to the Administrator all records and
evidence necessary to prosecute the civil action.
(2) Fully satisfying obligations owed the united states.--
The Administrator may accept property in satisfaction of any
sums owed the United States as a result of a default on a
loan guaranteed under this Act, but only to the extent that
any cash accepted by the Administrator is not sufficient to
satisfy fully the sums owed as a result of the default.
(l) Breach of Conditions.--The Administrator shall commence
a civil action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction to
enjoin any activity which the Board finds is in violation of
this Act, the regulations under this Act, or any conditions
which were duly agreed to, and to secure any other
appropriate relief, including relief against any affiliate of
the applicant.
(m) Attachment.--No attachment or execution may be issued
against the Administrator or any property in the control of
the Administrator pursuant to this Act before the entry of a
final judgment (as to which all rights of appeal have
expired) by a Federal, State, or other court of competent
jurisdiction against the Administrator in a proceeding for
such action.
(n) Fees.--
(1) Application fee.--The Board shall charge and collect
from an applicant for a loan guarantee under this Act a fee
to cover the cost of the Board in making necessary
determinations and findings with respect to the loan
guarantee application under this Act. The amount of the fee
shall be reasonable.
(2) Loan guarantee origination fee.--The Board shall
charge, and the Administrator may collect, a loan guarantee
origination fee with respect to the issuance of a loan
guarantee under this Act.
(3) Use of fees collected.--
(A) In general.--Any fee collected under this subsection
shall be used, subject to subparagraph (B), to offset
administrative costs under this Act, including costs of the
Board and of the Administrator.
(B) Subject to appropriations.--The authority provided by
this subsection shall be effective only to such extent or in
such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriations
Acts.
(C) Limitation on fees.--The aggregate amount of fees
imposed by this subsection shall not exceed the actual amount
of administrative costs under this Act.
(o) Requirements Relating to Affiliates.--
(1) Indemnification.--The United States shall be
indemnified by any affiliate (acceptable to the Board) of an
applicant for a loan guarantee under this Act for any losses
that the United States incurs as a result of--
(A) a judgment against the applicant or any of its
affiliates;
(B) any breach by the applicant or any of its affiliates of
their obligations under the loan guarantee agreement;
(C) any violation of the provisions of this Act, and the
regulations prescribed under this Act, by the applicant or
any of its affiliates;
(D) any penalties incurred by the applicant or any of its
affiliates for any reason, including violation of a
stipulated performance schedule under subsection (f); and
(E) any other circumstances that the Board considers
appropriate.
(2) Limitation on transfer of loan proceeds.--An applicant
for a loan guarantee under this Act may not transfer any part
of the proceeds of the loan to an affiliate.
(p) Effect of Bankruptcy.--
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever
any person or entity is indebted to the United States as a
result of any loan guarantee issued under this Act and such
person or entity is insolvent or is a debtor in a case under
title 11, United States Code, the debts due to the United
States shall be satisfied first.
(2) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11, United States
Code, shall not release a person or entity from an obligation
to the United States in connection with a loan guarantee
under this Act.
SEC. 1006. ANNUAL AUDIT.
(a) Requirement.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct on an annual basis an audit of--
(1) the administration of the provisions of this Act; and
(2) the financial position of each applicant who receives a
loan guarantee under this Act, including the nature, amount,
and purpose of investments made by the applicant.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of
the House of Representatives a report on each audit conducted
under subsection (a).
SEC. 1007. IMPROVED CELLULAR SERVICE IN RURAL AREAS.
(a) Reinstatement of Applicants as Tentative Selectees.--
(1) In General.--Notwithstanding the order of the Federal
Communications Commission in the proceeding described in
paragraph (3), the Commission shall--
(A) reinstate each applicant as a tentative selectee under
the covered rural service area licensing proceeding; and
(B) permit each applicant to amend its application, to the
extent necessary to update factual information and to comply
with the rules of the Commission, at any time before the
Commission's final licensing action in the covered rural
service area licensing proceeding.
(2) Exemption from petitions to deny.--For purposes of the
amended applications filed pursuant to paragraph (1)(B), the
provisions of section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(d)(1)) shall not apply.
(3) Proceeding.--The proceeding described in this paragraph
is the proceeding of the Commission In re Applications of
Cellwave Telephone Services L.P., Futurewave General Partners
L.P., and Great Western Cellular Partners, 7 FCC Rcd No. 19
(1992).
(b) Continuation of License Proceeding; Fee Assessment.--
(1) Award of licenses.--The Commission shall award licenses
under the covered rural service area licensing proceeding
within 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Service requirements.--The Commission shall provide
that, as a condition of an applicant receiving a license
pursuant to the covered rural service area licensing
proceeding, the applicant shall provide cellular
radiotelephone service to subscribers in accordance with
sections 22.946 and 22.947 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR
22.946, 22.947); except that the time period applicable under
section 22.947 of the Commission's rules (or any successor
rule) to the applicants identified in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of subsection (d)(1) shall be 3 years rather than 5 years
and the waiver authority of the Commission shall apply to
such 3-year period.
(3) Calculation of license fee.--
(A) Fee required.--The Commission shall establish a fee for
each of the licenses under the covered rural service area
licensing proceeding. In determining the amount of the fee,
the Commission shall consider--
(i) the average price paid per person served in the
Commission's Cellular Unserved Auction (Auction No. 12); and
(ii) the settlement payments required to be paid by the
permittees pursuant to the consent decree set forth in the
Commission's order, In re the Tellesis Partners (7 FCC Rcd
3168 (1992)), multiplying such payments by two.
(B) Notice of fee.--Within 30 days after the date an
applicant files the amended application permitted by
subsection (a)(1)(B), the Commission shall notify each
applicant of the fee established for the license associated
with its application.
(4) Payment for licenses.--No later than 18 months after
the date that an applicant is granted a license, each
applicant shall pay to the Commission the fee established
pursuant to paragraph (3) for the license granted to the
applicant under paragraph (1).
(5) Auction authority.--If, after the amendment of an
application pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B), the Commission
finds that the applicant is ineligible for grant of a license
to provide cellular radiotelephone services for a rural
service area or the applicant does not meet the requirements
under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Commission shall
grant the license for which the applicant is the tentative
selectee (pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B) by competitive
bidding pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)).
(c) Prohibition of Transfer.--During the 5-year period that
begins on the date that an applicant is granted any license
pursuant to subsection (a), the Commission may not authorize
the transfer or assignment of that license under section 310
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 310). Nothing in
this Act may be construed to prohibit any applicant granted a
license pursuant to subsection (a) from contracting with
other licensees to improve cellular telephone service.
(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) Applicant.--The term ``applicant'' means--
(A) Great Western Cellular Partners, a California general
partnership chosen by the Commission as tentative selectee
for RSA #492 on May 4, 1989;
[[Page 24636]]
(B) Monroe Telephone Services L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership chosen by the Commission as tentative selectee
for RSA #370 on August 24, 1989 (formerly Cellwave Telephone
Services L.P.); and
(C) FutureWave General Partners L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership chosen by the Commission as tentative selectee
for RSA #615 on May 25, 1990.
(2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(3) Covered rural service area licensing proceeding.--The
term ``covered rural service area licensing proceeding''
means the proceeding of the Commission for the grant of
cellular radiotelephone licenses for rural service areas #492
(Minnesota 11), #370 (Florida 11), and #615 (Pennsylvania 4).
(4) Tentative selectee.--The term ``tentative selectee''
means a party that has been selected by the Commission under
a licensing proceeding for grant of a license, but has not
yet been granted the license because the Commission has not
yet determined whether the party is qualified under the
Commission's rules for grant of the license.
SEC. 1008. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 339(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
339(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Definition.--Notwithstanding subsection (d)(4), for
purposes of paragraphs (2) and (4) of this subsection, the
term `satellite carrier' includes a distributor (as defined
in section 119(d)(1) of title 17, United States Code), but
only if the satellite distributor's relationship with the
subscriber includes billing, collection, service activation,
and service deactivation.''.
SEC. 1009. SUNSET.
No loan guarantee may be approved under this Act after
December 31, 2006.
SEC. 1010. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate''--
(A) means any person or entity that controls, or is
controlled by, or is under common control with, another
person or entity; and
(B) may include any individual who is a director or senior
management officer of an affiliate, a shareholder controlling
more than 25 percent of the voting securities of an
affiliate, or more than 25 percent of the ownership interest
in an affiliate not organized in stock form.
(2) Nonserved area.--The term ``nonserved area'' means any
area that--
(A) is outside the grade B contour (as determined using
standards employed by the Federal Communications Commission)
of the local television broadcast signals serving a
particular designated market area; and
(B) does not have access to such signals by any commercial,
for profit, multichannel video provider.
(3) Underserved area.--The term ``underserved area'' means
any area that--
(A) is outside the grade A contour (as determined using
standards employed by the Federal Communications Commission)
of the local television broadcast signals serving a
particular designated market area; and
(B) has access to local television broadcast signals from
not more than one commercial, for-profit multichannel video
provider.
(4) Common terms.--Except as provided in paragraphs (1)
through (3), any term used in this Act that is defined in the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) has the
meaning given that term in the Communications Act of 1934.
SEC. 1011. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Cost of Loan Guarantees.--For the cost of the loans
guaranteed under this Act, including the cost of modifying
the loans, as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661(a)), there are authorized to
be appropriated for fiscal years 2001 through 2006, such
amounts as may be necessary.
(b) Cost of Administration.--There is hereby authorized to
be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions of this Act, other than to cover costs under
subsection (a).
(c) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorizations of appropriations in subsections (a) and (b)
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 1012. PREVENTION OF INTERFERENCE TO DIRECT BROADCAST
SATELLITE SERVICES.
(a) Testing for Harmful Interference.--The Federal
Communications Commission shall provide for an independent
technical demonstration of any terrestrial service technology
proposed by any entity that has filed an application to
provide terrestrial service in the direct broadcast satellite
frequency band to determine whether the terrestrial service
technology proposed to be provided by that entity will cause
harmful interference to any direct broadcast satellite
service.
(b) Technical Demonstration.--In order to satisfy the
requirement of subsection (a) for any pending application,
the Commission shall select an engineering firm or other
qualified entity independent of any interested party based on
a recommendation made by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), or a similar independent
professional organization, to perform the technical
demonstration or analysis. The demonstration shall be
concluded within 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act and shall be subject to public notice and comment for not
more than 30 days thereafter.
(c) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) Direct broadcast satellite frequency band.--The term
``direct broadcast satellite frequency band'' means the band
of frequencies at 12.2 to 12.7 gigahertz.
(2) Direct broadcast satellite service.--The term ``direct
broadcast satellite service'' means any direct broadcast
satellite system operating in the direct broadcast satellite
frequency band.
TITLE XI--ENCOURAGING IMMIGRANT FAMILY REUNIFICATION
SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as--
(1) the ``Legal Immigration Family Equity Act''; or
(2) the ``LIFE Act''.
SEC. 1102. NONIMMIGRANT STATUS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF
PERMANENT RESIDENTS AWAITING THE AVAILABILITY
OF AN IMMIGRANT VISA; PROVISIONS AFFECTING
SUBSEQUENT ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR SUCH
NONIMMIGRANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (T), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (U), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(V) subject to section 214(o), an alien who is the
beneficiary (including a child of the principal alien, if
eligible to receive a visa under section 203(d)) of a
petition to accord a status under section 203(a)(2)(A) that
was filed with the Attorney General under section 204 on or
before the date of the enactment of the Legal Immigration
Family Equity Act, if--
``(i) such petition has been pending for 3 years or more;
or
``(ii) such petition has been approved, 3 years or more
have elapsed since such filing date, and--
``(I) an immigrant visa is not immediately available to the
alien because of a waiting list of applicants for visas under
section 203(a)(2)(A); or
``(II) the alien's application for an immigrant visa, or
the alien's application for adjustment of status under
section 245, pursuant to the approval of such petition,
remains pending.
(b) Provisions Affecting Nonimmigrant Status.--Section 214
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o)(1) In the case of a nonimmigrant described in section
101(a)(15)(V)--
``(A) the Attorney General shall authorize the alien to
engage in employment in the United States during the period
of authorized admission and shall provide the alien with an
`employment authorized' endorsement or other appropriate
document signifying authorization of employment; and
``(B) the period of authorized admission as such a
nonimmigrant shall terminate 30 days after the date on which
any of the following is denied:
``(i) The petition filed under section 204 to accord the
alien a status under section 203(a)(2)(A) (or, in the case of
a child granted nonimmigrant status based on eligibility to
receive a visa under section 203(d), the petition filed to
accord the child's parent a status under section
203(a)(2)(A)).
``(ii) The alien's application for an immigrant visa
pursuant to the approval of such petition.
``(iii) The alien's application for adjustment of status
under section 245 pursuant to the approval of such petition.
``(2) In determining whether an alien is eligible to be
admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section
101(a)(15)(V), the grounds for inadmissibility specified in
section 212(a)(9)(B) shall not apply.
``(3) The status of an alien physically present in the
United States may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in the
discretion of the Attorney General and under such regulations
as the Attorney General may prescribe, to that of a
nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(V), if the alien--
``(A) applies for such adjustment;
``(B) satisfies the requirements of such section; and
``(C) is eligible to be admitted to the United States,
except in determining such admissibility, the grounds for
inadmissibility specified in paragraphs (6)(A), (7), and
(9)(B) of section 212(a) shall not apply.''.
(c) Provisions Affecting Permanent Resident Status.--
Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1255) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(m)(1) The status of a nonimmigrant described in section
101(a)(15)(V) who the Attorney General determines was
physically present in the United States at any time during
the period beginning on July 1, 2000, and ending on October
1, 2000, may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in the
discretion of the Attorney General and under such regulations
as the Attorney General may prescribe, to that of an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if--
``(A) the alien makes an application for such adjustment;
``(B) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa
and is admissible to the United States for permanent
residence, except in determining such admissibility, the
grounds for inadmissibility specified in paragraphs (6)(A),
(7), and (9)(B) of section 212(a) shall not apply; and
``(C) an immigrant visa is immediately available to the
alien at the time the alien's application is filed.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien who has
failed (other than through no fault of
[[Page 24637]]
the alien or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously
a lawful status since obtaining the status of a nonimmigrant
described in section 101(a)(15)(V).
``(3) Upon the approval of an application for adjustment
made under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall record
the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of
the date the order of the Attorney General approving the
application for the adjustment of status is made, and the
Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the
preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 202
and 203 within the class to which the alien is chargeable for
the fiscal year then current.
``(4) The Attorney General may accept an application for
adjustment made under paragraph (1) only if the alien remits
with such application a sum equalling $1,000, except that
such sum shall not be required from an alien if it would not
be required from the alien if the alien were applying under
subsection (i).
``(5) The sum specified in paragraph (4) shall be in
addition to the fee normally required for the processing of
an application under this section.
``(6)(A) The portion of each application fee (not to exceed
$200) that the Attorney General determines is required to
process an application under this subsection shall be
disposed of by the Attorney General as provided in
subsections (m), (n), and (o) of section 286.
``(B) One-half of any remaining portion of such fee shall
be deposited by the Attorney General into the Immigration
Examination Fee Account established under section 286(m), and
one-half of any remaining portion of such fees shall be
deposited by the Attorney General into the Breached Bond/
Detention Fund established under section 286(r).
``(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
precluding a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(V)
who is eligible for adjustment of status under subsection (a)
from applying for and obtaining adjustment under such
subsection. In the case of such an application, the alien
shall be required to remit only the fee normally required for
the processing of an application under subsection (a).''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Admission of nonimmigrants.--Section 214 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) is amended,
in each of subsections (b) and (h), by striking ``(H)(i) or
(L)'' and inserting ``(H)(i), (L), or (V)''.
(2) Adjustment of status.--Section 245 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended--
(A) in each of subsections (d) and (f), by striking ``under
subsection (a),'' each place such term appears and inserting
``under subsection (a) or (m),''; and
(B) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``subsection (a).''
and inserting ``subsection (a) or (m).''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to an alien who is the beneficiary of a
classification petition filed under section 204 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act on or before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1103. NONIMMIGRANT STATUS FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF
CITIZENS AWAITING THE AVAILABILITY OF AN
IMMIGRANT VISA.
(a) In General.--Section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(K)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(K) subject to subsections (d) and (p) of section 214, an
alien who--
``(i) is the fiancee or fiance of a citizen of the United
States and who seeks to enter the United States solely to
conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety
days after admission;
``(ii) has concluded a valid marriage with a citizen of the
United States who is the petitioner, is the beneficiary of a
petition to accord a status under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i)
that was filed under section 204 by the petitioner, and seeks
to enter the United States to await the approval of such
petition and the availability to the alien of an immigrant
visa; or
``(iii) is the minor child of an alien described in clause
(i) or (ii) and is accompanying, or following to join, the
alien;''.
(b) Provisions Affecting Nonimmigrant Status.--Section 214
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184), as
amended by section 2 of this Act, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(p)(1) A visa shall not be issued under the provisions of
section 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) until the consular officer has
received a petition filed in the United States by the spouse
of the applying alien and approved by the Attorney General.
The petition shall be in such form and contain such
information as the Attorney General shall, by regulation,
prescribe.
``(2) In the case of an alien seeking admission under
section 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) who concluded a marriage with a
citizen of the United States outside the United States, the
alien shall be considered inadmissible under section
212(a)(7)(B) if the alien is not at the time of application
for admission in possession of a valid nonimmigrant visa
issued by a consular officer in the foreign state in which
the marriage was concluded.
``(3) In the case of a nonimmigrant described in section
101(a)(15)(K)(ii), and any child of such a nonimmigrant who
was admitted as accompanying, or following to join, such a
nonimmigrant, the period of authorized admission shall
terminate 30 days after the date on which any of the
following is denied:
``(A) The petition filed under section 204 to accord the
principal alien status under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i).
``(B) The principal alien's application for an immigrant
visa pursuant to the approval of such petition.
``(C) The principal alien's application for adjustment of
status under section 245 pursuant to the approval of such
petition.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Admission of nonimmigrants.--Section 214(d) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(d)) is amended
by striking ``101(a)(15)(K)'' and inserting
``101(a)(15)(K)(i)''.
(2) Conditional permanent resident status.--Section 216 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1186a) is
amended, in each of subsections (b)(1)(B) and (d)(1)(A)(ii),
by striking ``214(d)'' and inserting ``subsection (d) or (p)
of section 214''.
(3) Adjustment of status.--Section 245 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) is amended--
(A) in subsection (d), by striking ``(relating to an alien
fiancee or fiance or the minor child of such alien)''; and
(B) in subsection (e)(3), by striking ``214(d)'' and
inserting ``subsection (d) or (p) of section 214''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to an alien who is the beneficiary of a
classification petition filed under section 204 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act before, on, or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1104. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF CERTAIN CLASS ACTION
PARTICIPANTS WHO ENTERED BEFORE JANUARY 1,
1982, TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR LAWFUL
RESIDENCE.
(a) In General.--In the case of an eligible alien described
in subsection (b), the provisions of section 245A of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255a), as modified
by subsection (c), shall apply to the alien.
(b) Eligible Aliens Described.--An alien is an eligible
alien described in this subsection if, before October 1,
2000, the alien filed with the Attorney General a written
claim for class membership, with or without a filing fee,
pursuant to a court order issued in the case of--
(1) Catholic Social Services, Inc. v. Meese, vacated sub
nom. Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43
(1993); or
(2) League of United Latin American Citizens v. INS,
vacated sub nom. Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509
U.S. 43 (1993).
(c) Modifications to Provisions Governing Adjustment of
Status.--The modifications to section 245A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act that apply to an eligible alien described
in subsection (b) of this section are the following:
(1) Temporary resident status.--Subsection (a) of such
section 245A shall not apply.
(2) Adjustment to permanent resident status.--In lieu of
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) of such section
245A, the Attorney General shall be required to adjust the
status of an eligible alien described in subsection (b) of
this section to that of an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence if the alien meets the following
requirements:
(A) Application Period.--The alien must file with the
Attorney General an application for such adjustment during
the 12-month period beginning on the date on which the
Attorney General issues final regulations to implement this
section.
(B) Continuous unlawful residence.--
(i) In general.--The alien must establish that the alien
entered the United States before January 1, 1982, and that he
or she has resided continuously in the United States in an
unlawful status since such date and through May 4, 1988. In
determining whether an alien maintained continuous unlawful
residence in the United States for purposes of this
subparagraph, the regulations prescribed by the Attorney
General under section 245A(g) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act that were most recently in effect before the
date of the enactment of this Act shall apply.
(ii) Nonimmigrants.--In the case of an alien who entered
the United States as a nonimmigrant before January 1, 1982,
the alien must establish that the alien's period of
authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired before such date
through the passage of time or the alien's unlawful status
was known to the Government as of such date.
(iii) Exchange visitors.--If the alien was at any time a
nonimmigrant exchange alien (as defined in section
101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)), the alien must establish that the
alien was not subject to the two-year foreign residence
requirement of section 212(e) of such Act or has fulfilled
that requirement or received a waiver thereof.
(iv) Cuban and haitian entrants.--For purposes of this
section, an alien in the status of a Cuban and Haitian
entrant described in paragraph (1) or (2)(A) of section
501(e) of Public Law 96-422 shall be considered to have
entered the United States and to be in an unlawful status in
the United States.
(C) Continuous physical presence.--
(i) In general.--The alien must establish that the alien
was continuously physically present in the United States
during the period beginning on November 6, 1986, and ending
on May 4, 1988, except that--
(I) an alien shall not be considered to have failed to
maintain continuous physical presence in the United States
for purposes of this subparagraph by virtue of brief, casual,
and innocent absences from the United States; and
(II) brief, casual, and innocent absences from the United
States shall not be limited to absences with advance parole.
[[Page 24638]]
(ii) Admissions.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as authorizing an alien to apply for admission to,
or to be admitted to, the United States in order to apply for
adjustment of status under this section or section 245A of
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(D) Admissible as immigrant.--The alien must establish that
the alien--
(i) is admissible to the United States as an immigrant,
except as otherwise provided under section 245A(d)(2) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act;
(ii) has not been convicted of any felony or of three or
more misdemeanors committed in the United States;
(iii) has not assisted in the persecution of any person or
persons on account of race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion; and
(iv) is registered or registering under the Military
Selective Service Act, if the alien is required to be so
registered under that Act.
(E) Basic citizenship skills.--
(i) In general.--The alien must demonstrate that the alien
either--
(I) meets the requirements of section 312(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1423(a)) (relating
to minimal understanding of ordinary English and a knowledge
and understanding of the history and government of the United
States); or
(II) is satisfactorily pursuing a course of study
(recognized by the Attorney General) to achieve such an
understanding of English and such a knowledge and
understanding of the history and government of the United
States.
(ii) Exception for elderly or developmentally disabled
individuals.--The Attorney General may, in the discretion of
the Attorney General, waive all or part of the requirements
of clause (i) in the case of an alien who is 65 years of age
or older or who is developmentally disabled.
(iii) Relation to naturalization examination.--In
accordance with regulations of the Attorney General, an alien
who has demonstrated under clause (i)(I) that the alien meets
the requirements of section 312(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act may be considered to have satisfied the
requirements of that section for purposes of becoming
naturalized as a citizen of the United States under title III
of such Act.
(3) Temporary stay of removal, authorized travel, and
employment during pendency of application.--In lieu of
subsections (b)(3) and (e)(2) of such section 245A, the
Attorney General shall provide that, in the case of an
eligible alien described in subsection (b) of this section
who presents a prima facie application for adjustment of
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence under such section 245A during the application
period described in paragraph (2)(A), until a final
determination on the application has been made--
(A) the alien may not be deported or removed from the
United States;
(B) the Attorney General shall, in accordance with
regulations, permit the alien to return to the United States
after such brief and casual trips abroad as reflect an
intention on the part of the alien to adjust to lawful
permanent resident status and after brief temporary trips
abroad occasioned by a family obligation involving an
occurrence such as the illness or death of a close relative
or other family need; and
(C) the Attorney General shall grant the alien
authorization to engage in employment in the United States
and provide to that alien an ``employment authorized''
endorsement or other appropriate work permit.
(4) Applications.--Paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection
(c) of such section 245A shall not apply.
(5) Confidentiality of information.--Subsection (c)(5) of
such section 245A shall apply to information furnished by an
eligible alien described in subsection (b) pursuant to any
application filed under such section 245A or this section,
except that the Attorney General (and other officials and
employees of the Department of Justice and any bureau or
agency thereof) may use such information for purposes of
rescinding, pursuant to section 246(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1256(a)), any adjustment of status
obtained by the alien.
(6) Use of fees for immigration-related unfair employment
practices.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)(7)(C) of such
section 245A, no application fee paid to the Attorney General
pursuant to this section by an eligible alien described in
subsection (b) of this section shall be available in any
fiscal year for the purpose described in such subsection
(c)(7)(C).
(7) Temporary stay of removal and work authorization for
certain applicants before application period.--In lieu of
subsection (e)(1) of such section 245A, the Attorney General
shall provide that in the case of an eligible alien described
in subsection (b) of this section who is apprehended before
the beginning of the application period described in
paragraph (2)(A) and who can establish a prima facie case of
eligibility to have his status adjusted under such section
245A pursuant to this section (but for the fact that he may
not apply for such adjustment until the beginning of such
period), until the alien has had the opportunity during the
first 30 days of the application period to complete the
filing of an application for adjustment, the alien--
(A) may not be deported or removed from the United States;
and
(B) shall be granted authorization to engage in employment
in the United States and be provided an ``employment
authorized'' endorsement or other appropriate work permit.
(8) Jurisdiction of courts.--Effective as of November 6,
1986, subsection (f)(4)(C) of such section 245A shall not
apply to an eligible alien described in subsection (b) of
this section.
(9) Public welfare assistance.--Subsection (h) of such
section 245A shall not apply.
(d) Applications From Abroad.--The Attorney General shall
establish a process under which an alien who has become
eligible to apply for adjustment of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence as a result
of the enactment of this section and who is not physically
present in the United States may apply for such adjustment
from abroad.
(e) Deadline for Regulations.--The Attorney General shall
issue regulations to implement this section not later than
120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(f) Administrative and Judicial Review.--The provisions of
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 245A(f)(4) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255a(f)(4)) shall
apply to administrative or judicial review of a determination
under this section or of a determination respecting an
application for adjustment of status under section 245A of
the Immigration and Nationality Act filed pursuant to this
section.
(g) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``such section 245A'' means section 245A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255a).
Titles I through VII of this Act may be cited as the
``Department of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001.''
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
Following is explanatory language on H.R. 5548, as
introduced on October 25, 2000.
The conferees on H.R. 4942 agree with the matter included
in H.R. 5548 and enacted in this conference report by
reference and the following description of it. The bill was
developed through negotiations by subcommittee members of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Subcommittees of the House and Senate on
the differences in the House passed and Senate reported
versions of H.R. 4690. References in the following
description to the ``conference agreement'' mean the matter
included in the introduced bill enacted by this conference
report. References to the House bill mean the House passed
version of H.R. 4690. References to the Senate reported
amendment mean the Senate reported version of H.R. 4690.
The House passed H.R. 4690 on June 26, 2000. The Senate
reported from Committee a Senate amendment to H.R. 4690 on
July 21, 2000. References in the following statement to
appropriations amounts or other items proposed by the House
bill or the Senate-reported amendment refer only to those
amounts and items recommended in the House-passed and Senate-
reported versions of H.R. 4690. Any reference to
appropriations amounts or other items included in the
conference agreement reflects the final agreement on H.R.
4690. This statement reflects how the funds provided in the
conference agreement are to be spent.
Senate-reported amendment: The Senate Appropriations
Committee considered H.R. 4690 as passed by the House, struck
all after the enacting clause, and inserted the text of the
Senate-reported amendment. The conference agreement includes
a revised bill.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $88,713,000 for General
Administration, instead of $83,713,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment and $84,177,000 as proposed in the
House bill.
The conference agreement adopts by reference the House
report language regarding budget ``shortfalls'' and racial
disparities in Federal capital prosecutions.
The conference agreement includes a $5,000,000 transfer
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service Salaries and
Expenses account to continue the planned integration of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) IDENT system and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) IAFIS system.
The conference agreement includes a $5,000,000 increase for
the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review for Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act applications.
The conference agreement includes bill language contained
in the House bill specifying the amount of funding provided
for the Department Leadership Program and the Offices of
Legislative and Public Affairs.
JOINT AUTOMATED BOOKING SYSTEM
The conference agreement includes $15,915,000 for the Joint
Automated Booking System (JABS) program as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment, instead of $1,800,000 as proposed
in the House bill.
NARROWBAND COMMUNICATIONS
The conference agreement includes $205,000,000 for
narrowband communications conversion activities as proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment, instead of $95,445,000 as
proposed in the House bill. The conference agreement provides
funding necessary to continue implementation of the
Department of Justice Wireless Network (JWN), and for
operations and maintenance
[[Page 24639]]
of legacy systems. The Wireless Management Office (WMO) is
directed to submit quarterly status reports on implementation
of the JWN, with the first such report due no later than
February 15, 2001.
The conference agreement deletes a citation included in the
House bill but not included in the Senate-reported amendment.
COUNTERTERRORISM FUND
The conference agreement includes $5,000,000 for the
Counterterrorism Fund as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of $10,000,000 as proposed in the House
bill. When combined with $32,844,150 in prior year carryover,
a total of $37,844,150 will be available in the Fund in
fiscal year 2001 to cover unanticipated, extraordinary
expenses incurred as a result of a terrorist threat or
incident.
The conference agreement retains language, included in the
House bill and carried in previous Acts, authorizing the
Attorney General to make expenditures from the fund, subject
to section 605 of this Act. The Senate-reported amendment
proposed to give this authority to a new Deputy Attorney
General.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER COMPLIANCE FUND
The conference agreement includes $201,420,000 for the
Telecommunications Carrier Compliance program for
implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA), instead of $278,021,000 as
proposed in the House bill. The Senate-reported amendment did
not include funding for this activity. This amount, when
combined with funds previously made available, will provide
the full $500,000,000 authorized and required to implement
CALEA.
The conference agreement concurs with the direction in the
House report that the Department and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) are to remain focused on the timely
implementation of CALEA, and have therefore included
$17,300,000 within the FBI Salaries and Expenses account for
CALEA implementation. The Department of Justice is directed
to submit a reorganization proposal no later than November
15, 2000, to ensure coordination of CALEA implementation and
other related electronic surveillance issues.
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND APPEALS
The conference agreement includes $161,062,000 for
Administrative Review and Appeals, instead of $159,570,000 as
proposed in the House bill and $112,814,000 as proposed in
the Senate-reported amendment. Of the total amount provided,
$159,335,000 is for the Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR) and $1,727,000 is for the Office of the Pardon
Attorney.
The conference agreement includes $9,566,000 for
adjustments to base, and $3,000,000, 37 positions and 19
full-time equivalent workyears (FTE) to address the increased
Immigration Judge and appellate caseload. In addition, EOIR
is directed to provide such sums as necessary for point-to-
point installation of video-conferencing equipment in
accordance with EOIR's plan and the Senate report. The
conference agreement also includes direction under the INS
Examinations Fees account regarding continued support for
contract court interpreter services.
DETENTION TRUSTEE
The conference agreement includes $1,000,000 to establish a
new Federal Detention Trustee within the Department of
Justice as proposed in the House bill. The Senate-reported
amendment did not address this matter. The conference
agreement reflects the concerns expressed in the House report
regarding the planning and management of detention space in
the Department of Justice. Therefore, the direction included
in the House report regarding the authorities and duties of
this new Trustee, and the establishment of regional pilot
projects to test better mechanisms for addressing detention
needs, is adopted by reference. Further, the Department of
Justice is expected to consolidate all detention resources
under the Trustee as part of the fiscal year 2002 budget
submission.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
The conference agreement includes $41,575,000 for the
Office of Inspector General (OIG) instead of $41,825,000 as
proposed in the House bill and $42,192,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment. The conference agreement also
assumes that $1,500,000 in INS fees will be available to the
OIG.
The conference agreement directs the Department of Justice
to review its procedures for releasing OIG investigatory
material and findings and inform the Committees on
Appropriations by June 1, 2001, if any procedures should be
modified.
The OIG is directed to submit future budget requests
separating OIG Leadership Offices and OIG Operational
Offices. The OIG Leadership Offices decision unit should
include the following: the Inspector General, the Deputy
Inspector General, the Counselor to the Inspector General,
the Special Counsel, and the Special Investigations and
Review Unit. The Operational Offices decision unit should
include the following offices: the Audit Division, the
Investigations Division, the Inspections Division, and the
Management and Planning Division.
The conference agreement directs that the OIG submit a
detailed financial plan to the Committees on Appropriations
by December 1, 2000.
United States Parole Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $8,855,000 for the U.S.
Parole Commission, as proposed in the House bill, instead of
the $7,380,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
The conference agreement adopts by reference the
recommendation in the Senate report on detailing attorneys.
Legal Activities
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, GENERAL LEGAL ACTIVITIES
The conference agreement includes $535,771,000 for General
Legal Activities, instead of $523,228,000 as proposed in the
House bill, and $494,310,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment.
The recommendation includes base adjustments for all
divisions, but does not include an undefined base
restoration. The distribution of funding provided is as
follows:
Office of the Solicitor General..............................$7,118,000
Tax Division.................................................70,991,000
Criminal Division...........................................110,851,000
Civil Division..............................................154,092,000
Environment and Natural Resources............................68,703,000
Office of Legal Counsel.......................................4,967,000
Civil Rights Division........................................92,166,000
Interpol--USNCB...............................................7,686,000
Legal Activities Office Automation...........................18,877,000
Office of Dispute Resolution....................................320,000
________________
Total...................................................535,771,000
The conference agreement includes a $3,000,000 increase for
the Civil Rights Division, including funding for civil
enforcement for police misconduct, and other highest priority
initiatives.
The conference agreement provides $18,877,000 to remain
available until expended for office automation costs as
proposed in the House bill, instead of $18,571,000 as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. The conference
agreement adopts language included in the Senate-reported
amendment which limits the use of these funds to automation
costs and allows such funds to be used for the United States
Trustees Program. The conference agreement adopts by
reference the Senate report language regarding the Office of
Special Investigations, and the House report language
regarding extradition reporting and extradition treaties.
THE NATIONAL CHILDHOOD VACCINE INJURY ACT
The conference agreement includes a reimbursement of
$4,028,000 for fiscal year 2001 from the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund to the Department of Justice, as
proposed in the House bill and the Senate-reported amendment.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, ANTITRUST DIVISION
The conference agreement provides $120,838,000 for the
Antitrust Division as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of $113,269,000 as proposed in the House
bill. The conference agreement assumes that of the amount
provided, $95,838,000 will be derived from current year fee
collections and $25,000,000 from estimated unobligated fee
collections available from prior years, resulting in a net
direct appropriation of $0. The use of any remaining
unobligated fees balances from prior years is subject to the
reprogramming requirements outlined in section 605 of this
Act.
Appropriations for both the Division and the Federal Trade
Commission are financed with Hart-Scott-Rodino Act pre-merger
filing fees. Section 630 of this Act modifies the Hart-Scott-
Rodino Act to include a three-tiered fee structure that
increases the filing threshold for a merger transaction from
$15,000,000 to $50,000,000. It is anticipated that the
increase in the filing threshold will reduce the number of
mergers requiring review by approximately 50 percent.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
The conference agreement includes $1,250,382,000 for the
U.S. Attorneys, instead of $1,247,416,000 as proposed in the
House bill, and $1,159,014,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The following narrative reflects how the
funds provided in the conference agreement are to be spent.
The conference agreement provides a net increase of
$59,896,000 for pay and inflationary adjustments to enable
the U.S. Attorneys to maintain the current operating level.
The conference agreement does not include $7,425,000
requested as base adjustments to substitute direct
appropriations for activities previously supported from the
Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control (HCFAC) account. The
Department of Justice is directed to continue to provide
funding for not less than 177 positions and 177 FTE to the
U.S. Attorneys from the HCFAC account to support health care
fraud activities.
The conference agreement also includes the following
program increases:
Firearms Prosecutions.--$15,259,000, 163 positions and 82
FTE, including 113 attorneys, to augment prosecutions under
existing firearms statutes. This amount, when combined
[[Page 24640]]
with base resources of $7,125,000, will provide a total of
$22,384,000 for intensive firearms prosecution projects. The
direction included in the House report regarding the criteria
and process for allocation of these funds is adopted by
reference. Further, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys is
directed not to set aside any portion of these funds for
headquarters priorities, but rather is to allocate these
funds in accordance with the priorities identified by the
local districts which will result in a direct increase in
prosecutions under existing gun laws. In addition, the
conference agreement adopts the Senate direction requiring
the annualization of funds provided in fiscal year 2000 for
firearms prosecutions, and the reporting requirement
regarding panel attorney costs.
Cyber Crime and Intellectual Property.--$3,974,000, 50
positions and 25 FTE, including 28 attorneys, to augment the
investigation and prosecution of computer and intellectual
property crimes, including crimes identified in the No
Electronic Theft (NET) Act, the National Information
Infrastructure Assurance Act, and the Economic Espionage Act.
The direction included in the Senate report regarding
submission of a report on copyright enforcement is adopted by
reference.
Immigration.--$1,974,000, 24 positions and 12 FTE,
including 13 attorneys, to address the growing criminal
immigration caseload along the Southwest Border, with
particular emphasis to be placed on prosecutions of
individuals involved in alien smuggling, document fraud, and
illegal aliens with multiple deportations. The conference
agreement adopts by reference the direction included in the
House report regarding submission of a spending plan for
these resources.
Indian Country.--$5,000,000, 60 positions and 30 FTE,
including 33 attorneys, to enhance Federal investigation and
prosecution activities in Indian Country to meet Federal
statutory responsibilities related to Indian Country.
Legal Education.--$2,300,000 to continue establishment of a
distance learning facility at the National Advocacy Center
(NAC). This amount, when combined with $15,316,000 in base
resources, provides a total of $17,616,000 under this account
for legal education at the National Advocacy Center (NAC).
These funds are to be spent in accordance with the direction
included in the Senate report.
Within the total amount available to the U.S. Attorneys,
the conference agreement includes $2,612,000 for technology
demonstration projects, and adopts by reference the direction
included in the Senate report regarding distribution of these
resources. In addition, $1,000,000 is included from within
base resources to continue a violent crime task force
demonstration project, as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. The conference agreement also adopts by reference
the direction included in the House and Senate reports
regarding the unstaffed offices report, as well as the
direction included in the Senate report regarding an office
in Western Kentucky. In addition, the Senate report language
regarding property flipping, computer network privatization,
and a fiscal year 1995 quarterly reporting requirement are
adopted by reference.
The conference agreement does not adopt the recommendations
included in the Senate report regarding the reallocation of
existing staffing to the Southwest border and within the
Missouri River Valley, spending freezes among object
classifications, elimination of base funds for office
relocations, limitations on expansion of gun prosecution
initiatives, or pre-trial sentencing guidelines.
In addition to identical provisions that were included in
both the House bill and Senate-reported amendment, the
conference agreement includes the following provisions: (1)
providing for 9,439 positions and 9,557 workyears for the
U.S. Attorneys, instead of 9,381 positions and 9,529
workyears as proposed in the House bill, and 9,120 positions
and 9,398 workyears as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment; (2) allowing not to exceed $2,500,000 for the
National Advocacy Center as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment; and (3) providing $1,000,000 for violent crime
task forces to remain available until expended as proposed in
the Senate-reported amendment. The conference agreement does
not include language proposed in the Senate bill withholding
50 percent of funds available to U.S. Attorneys until the
Attorney General establishes certain rules and penalties in
accordance with the Senate version of the fiscal year 2000
appropriations bill.
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE SYSTEM FUND
The conference agreement provides $125,997,000 for the U.S.
Trustees for fiscal year 2001, to be entirely funded from
offsetting collections, instead of $126,242,000 proposed in
the House bill and $127,212,000 proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The conference agreement does not provide
amounts the budget request assumed would carry forward to
fiscal year 2002. The conference agreement adopts by
reference the Senate report language on the National Advocacy
Center (NAC). The conference agreement also adopts House
report language on the reprogramming of offsetting
collections.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION
The conference agreement provides $1,107,000 for the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, instead of $1,000,000
as proposed in the House bill and $1,214,000 as proposed in
the Senate-reported amendment.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE
The conference agreement includes $572,695,000 for the U.S.
Marshals Service Salaries and Expenses account, instead of
$560,438,000 as proposed in the House bill and $550,472,000
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. The following
narrative reflects how the funds provided in the conference
agreement are to be spent.
The amount included in the conference agreement includes a
$4,713,000 net increase in base adjustments, as follows:
$19,774,000 for pay and inflationary increases, offset by
decreases of $4,852,000 for one-time equipment purchases and
$10,209,000 from the transfer of the Seized Assets Management
Program to the Assets Forfeiture Fund. Within the amount
provided, a total of $1,735,000 is included for the Warrant
Information Network and other networks and on-line services,
and $725,000 is for recurring costs of the Electronic
Surveillance Unit as directed in the Senate report. The
conference agreement does not adopt the recommendation
included in the Senate-reported amendment to transfer funding
from this account for U.S. Marshals Service costs associated
with the Justice Prisoner Alien Transportation System
(JPATS), but instead provides $25,503,000 for U.S. Marshals
Service requirements under this account.
In addition, the conference agreement includes $27,389,000
in program increases for the following:
Courthouse Security Staffing and Equipment.--$21,211,000,
for courthouse security personnel and equipment. Of this
amount, $6,711,000, 89 positions and 45 FTE are provided for
courthouse security personnel at new and expanded courthouses
expected to open in fiscal year 2001. Language included in
the House report regarding the submission of a spending plan
and allocation of resources in excess of requirements is
adopted by reference.
In addition, $14,500,000 is provided for courthouse
security equipment, as follows:
USMS Courthouse Security Equipment
[In thousands of dollars]
New Courthouses..................................................$8,173
Las Vegas, NV.................................................(1,023)
Cleveland, OH.................................................(1,012)
Columbia, SC..................................................(1,122)
Greenville, TN..................................................(353)
Corpus Christi, TX............................................(1,078)
Laredo, TX......................................................(989)
Providence, RI..................................................(920)
Helena, MT......................................................(658)
Wheeling, WV....................................................(245)
Denver, CO......................................................(773)
Other Security Requirements.......................................5,684
Nationwide Equipment Maintenance Requirement........................643
________________
Total, USMS Security Equipment..............................14,500
The Marshals Service is directed to use the $5,684,000
provided for Other Security Requirements to address the
highest priority security equipment needs for existing
courthouses and new courthouses with the greatest
deficiencies, and to submit a spending plan for these funds
no later than December 1, 2000.
Electronic Surveillance Unit.--$3,150,000, and up to 6
positions and 3 FTE, for personnel and equipment for the
Electronic Surveillance Unit.
Special Assignments.--$2,500,000 for security at high
threat and/or high profile trials and for protective details
for judicial personnel involved in these trials, including
the World Trade Center bombing trial. The Marshals Service is
directed to annualize this increase in fiscal year 2002.
Concerns have been expressed regarding the exclusion of the
Marshals Service from the threat assessment and decision-
making process regarding certain special and other protective
assignments. In addition, the level of protection at Federal
facilities by the General Services Administration (GSA) is
inadequate relative to the amount the Marshals Service and
other agencies are charged by GSA for these services. The
Department is directed to report to the Committees on
Appropriations no later than December 15, 2000, on the role
afforded to the Marshals Service in the threat assessment and
decision-making process for special and other protective
assignments, and to provide recommendations to augment the
Marshals Service's role in this activity. Further, the
Department is directed to provide a report on the adequacy of
support provided by GSA for facility protection, relative to
the amount GSA is charging for these services.
Financial Management.--$378,000, 8 positions and 4 FTE to
improve financial management.
Cost Saving Initiatives.--$150,000 for implementation and
support of a variety of cost saving initiatives as directed
in the Senate report. Should additional funds become
available through savings achieved, the Marshals Service may
use those funds for additional staff only in accordance with
Section 605 of this Act.
The conference agreement adopts by reference the concerns
expressed in the Senate
[[Page 24641]]
report regarding the Special Operations Group (SOG) and
directs the Marshals Service to provide a report to the
Committees on Appropriations no later than January 15, 2001,
on the utilization of the SOG, as well as the resource
requirements necessary to ensure that the SOG can fulfill its
intended mission.
The conference agreement includes language providing not to
exceed 3,947 positions and 3,895 FTE for the Marshals
Service, instead of 4,168 positions and 3,892 FTE as proposed
in the House bill. The Senate-reported amendment did not
include a similar provision. The conference agreement does
not include a provision proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment prohibiting the Marshals Service from providing a
protective vehicle for the Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) unless certain conditions are
met. A similar provision was not included in the House bill.
However, the Marshals Service is directed to provide a report
to the Committees on Appropriations no later than January 15,
2001, on the usage of a protective vehicle by the Director of
ONDCP.
CONSTRUCTION
The conference agreement includes $18,128,000 in direct
appropriations for the U.S. Marshals Service Construction
account, instead of $6,000,000 as proposed in the House bill,
and $25,100,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
The conference agreement includes the following distribution
of funds:
USMS Construction
[In thousands of dollars]
Birmingham, AL.....................................................$472
Fort Smith, AR......................................................400
Hartford, CT........................................................200
Wilmington, DE......................................................100
Bowling Green, KY...................................................300
Boston, MA..........................................................650
Ann Arbor, MI.......................................................200
Detroit, MI.........................................................650
Wilmington, NC......................................................775
Buffalo, NY.........................................................150
Tulsa, OK...........................................................300
Philadelphia, PA....................................................400
Hato Rey, PR........................................................793
Spartanburg, SC...................................................1,441
Greenville, MS....................................................1,187
Other Renovation Projects.........................................9,500
Security Specialists/Construction Engineers.........................610
________
Total, Construction..........................................18,128
The Marshals Service is directed to use the $9,500,000
provided for Other Renovation Projects for the highest
priority security construction needs in locations with a
security score of 50 or less, and to submit a spending plan
for these funds no later than December 1, 2000.
JUSTICE PRISONER AND ALIEN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FUND
The conference agreement includes language, as proposed in
the House bill, to continue the operations of JPATS on a
revolving fund basis through reimbursements from
participating agencies, instead of through a direct
appropriation under this account as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The conference agreement does include a
direct appropriation of $13,500,000 for a one-time
capitalization of the Fund to procure two Sabreliner-class
aircraft as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
FEDERAL PRISONER DETENTION
The conference agreement provides $597,402,000 for Federal
Prisoner Detention as proposed in both the House bill and the
budget request, instead of $539,022,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment, an increase of $72,402,000 over
the fiscal year 2000 direct appropriation. The increase has
been provided as follows: (1) $53,180,000 is for increased
jail days; (2) $10,000,000 is for the Cooperative Agreement
Program; (3) $675,000 is for increased medical costs; and (4)
$500,000 is for prisoner medical guard services.
The conference agreement does not include language in this
section proposed in both the House bill and Senate-reported
amendment regarding contracts with private entities for the
confinement of Federal detainees, but instead addresses this
matter as a new general provision under Title I of this Act.
Language is included, as proposed in the House bill,
permanently making available amounts appropriated under this
account to be used to reimburse the Federal Bureau of Prisons
for certain costs associated with providing medical care to
certain pre-trial and pre-sentenced detainees. The Senate-
reported amendment addressed this matter elsewhere under
Title I of this Act.
FEES AND EXPENSES OF WITNESSES
The conference agreement includes $125,573,000 for Fees and
Expenses of Witnesses, instead of $95,000,000 as proposed in
the House bill, and $156,145,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment.
Language is included allowing not to exceed $5,000,000 to
be made available for secure telecommunications equipment and
networks related to protected witnesses, as proposed in the
House bill. The conference agreement does not include a
provision allowing up to $77,067,000 to be transferred from
this account to the Federal Prisoner Detention account as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE
The conference agreement includes $8,475,000 for the
Community Relations Service as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment, instead of $7,479,000 as proposed in the
House bill. The conference agreement adopts the funding
increases provided in the Senate report. In addition, the
conference agreement includes a provision allowing the
Attorney General to transfer up to $1,000,000 of funds
available to the Department of Justice to this program, as
proposed in the House bill. The Attorney General is expected
to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
and Senate if this transfer authority is exercised. In
addition, a provision is included allowing the Attorney
General to transfer additional resources, subject to
reprogramming procedures, upon a determination that emergent
circumstances warrant additional funding, as proposed in both
the House bill and the Senate-reported amendment.
ASSETS FORFEITURE FUND
The conference agreement provides $23,000,000 for the
Assets Forfeiture Fund as proposed in Senate-reported
amendment, instead of no funding as proposed in the House
bill.
Radiation Exposure Compensation
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $2,000,000 for
administrative expenses for fiscal year 2001, the full amount
requested and the same amount proposed in both the House bill
and the Senate-reported amendment. The conference agreement
adopts the bill language in the House bill.
PAYMENT TO RADIATION COMPENSATION EXPOSURE TRUST FUND
The conference agreement provides $10,800,000 for the
compensation trust fund, instead of $3,200,000 provided in
the House bill and $14,400,000 in the Senate-reported
amendment. The conference agreement includes bill language
from the Senate-reported amendment allowing claimants who
qualify under the original statute to be paid and does not
provide funding for the expansion of the program authorized
under Public Law 106-245.
Interagency Law Enforcement
INTERAGENCY CRIME AND DRUG ENFORCEMENT
The conference agreement provides a total of $328,898,000
for Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement as proposed in the
House bill, of which $325,898,000 is derived from direct
appropriations, and $3,000,000 is from prior year carryover.
The House bill included $328,898,000 in direct
appropriations, while the Senate-reported amendment proposed
$316,792,000. The distribution of the total available funding
is as follows:
Reimbursements by Agency
[In thousands of dollars]
Drug Enforcement Administration................................$108,190
Federal Bureau of Investigation.................................112,468
Immigration and Naturalization Service...........................15,808
Marshals Service..................................................1,984
U.S. Attorneys...................................................86,582
Criminal Division...................................................814
Tax Division......................................................1,380
Administrative Office.............................................1,672
__________
Total.......................................................328,898
The conferees note that the report requested in fiscal year
2000 has not yet been delivered to the Committees on
Appropriations.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes a total of $3,235,600,000
for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Salaries and
Expenses account, instead of $3,229,505,000 as proposed in
the House bill, and $3,077,581,000 as recommended in the
Senate-reported amendment. Of this amount, the conference
agreement provides that not less than $437,650,000 shall be
used for counterterrorism investigations, foreign
counterintelligence, and other activities related to national
security, instead of $400,650,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment, and $159,223,000 as proposed in the House
bill. The following narrative reflects how the funds provided
in the conference agreement are to be spent.
The conference agreement includes a net increase of
$136,080,000 for adjustments to base as follows: increases
totaling $137,219,000 for pay and inflationary increases,
including $27,711,000 for increased costs associated with the
transfer of Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees
to the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS), increased
Federal health insurance premium costs, and continued direct
funding for the National Instant Check System; offset by
decreases totaling $1,139,000 for non-recurring equipment
purchases.
The conference agreement adopts the concerns and direction
included in the House report regarding the FBI's inability to
execute its budget within the funding levels provided. The
conference agreement provides the full amount requested for
base adjustments to support the FBI's current staffing and
operating level as reflected in the budget request. The
conference agreement also includes a provision that
identifies the funded position and FTE levels provided in the
bill, which are consistent with the full base funding
requested and program increases provided in the conference
agreement. The FBI
[[Page 24642]]
is directed to continue to provide quarterly reports to the
Committees on Appropriations which delineate by direct and
reimbursable the funded and actual agent and non-agent
staffing level for each decision unit, with the first report
to be provided no later than January 15, 2001.
The following distribution represents the conference
agreement:
FBI SALARIES AND EXPENSES, FISCAL YEAR 2001
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Pos. FTE Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal, Security and Other
Investigations:
Organized Criminal Enterprisees....... 3,984 3,993 450,678
White Collar Crime.................... 4,284 4,184 483,273
Other Field Programs.................. 10,551 10,304 1,307,024
-----------------------------
Subtotal............................ 18,819 18,481 2,240,975
=============================
Law Enforcement Support:
Training, Recruitment, and Applicant.. 1,003 984 120,454
Forensic Services..................... 692 680 156,004
Information, Management, Automation & 569 562 166,121
Telecommunications...................
Technical Field Support & Services.... 232 229 141,642
Criminal Justice Services............. 2,171 2,182 216,957
-----------------------------
Subtotal............................ 4,667 4,637 801,178
Program Direction: Management and 2,083 2,024 193,447
Administration...........................
=============================
Total, Direct Appropriations........ 25,569 25,142 3,235,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FBI is reminded that changes in this distribution are
subject to the reprogramming requirements in section 605 of
this Act.
In addition, the conference agreement includes a total of
$59,712,000 in program enhancements for the FBI, of which
$58,348,000 is for initiatives to enhance the FBI's ability
to investigate threats related to domestic terrorism and
cyber crime, as follows:
$25,000,000 is for Digital Storm. The FBI is directed to
provide a spending plan to the Committees on Appropriations,
no later than December 15, 2000, for Digital Storm.
$2,000,000 is for Joint Terrorism Task Forces. The FBI is
directed to provide a report and spending plan to the
Committees on Appropriations, no later than December 15,
2000, on this program.
$10,000,000 is for intelligence gathering and analysis, of
which $1,305,000 (20 positions and 10 FTE) is for FISA
preparation; $5,606,000 is for contract translation services;
and $3,089,000 (55 positions and 28 FTE) is for intelligence
research specialists. The conference agreement does not adopt
the recommendation included in the Senate report to require
the conversion of special agents to 55 intelligence research
specialists. While the conference agreement does provide an
enhancement for this activity, the FBI is directed to use
attrition to convert support positions to intelligence
research specialist positions to meet additional requirements
in this area.
$20,000,000 is for other activities, of which the FBI may
spend up to $1,364,000 for National Integrated Ballistics
Network (NIBIN) Connectivity; $3,700,000 (26 positions and 13
FTE) for a counterintelligence initiative; $3,936,000 for the
Automated Computer Examination System (ACES) and Computer
Analysis and Response Team equipment; $5,500,000 for the
Special Technologies and Applications Unit; and $5,500,000
for Digital Storm. Should the FBI require additional
resources to address personnel requirements, the Committees
would be willing to entertain a reprogramming under Section
605 from funding provided for these enhancements.
$612,000 (8 positions and 4 workyears, including 2 agents)
is for the Intellectual Property Rights Center, as provided
for in the House report, to improve intelligence and analysis
related to intellectual property. The reporting requirement
included in Senate report regarding copyright enforcement is
adopted by reference.
$2,100,000 is for implementation of the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), for a total of
not less than $17,300,000 within the FBI to be used for this
purpose. The conference agreement adopts the direction in the
House report that the Department and the FBI remain focused
on the timely implementation of CALEA, and therefore the
Department of Justice is directed to submit a reorganization
proposal to address coordination of CALEA implementation and
other related electronic surveillance issues no later than
November 15, 2000. This reorganization is expected to ensure
continued coordination between the Department and the FBI on
all matters involving CALEA implementation, as well as to
ensure prioritization of financial and personnel resources
required for a continued and sustained implementation effort.
National Instant Check System (NICS).--The conference
agreement includes $67,735,000 in direct appropriations to
continue operations of the NICS, as well as to provide system
enhancements, including funds for ``hot'' backup for the
Interstate Identification Index (III) and other system
availability improvements.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the FBI included no
direct funding for the NICS, and instead proposed to finance
the costs of this system through a user fee. The conference
agreement includes a provision under Title VI of this Act
which prohibits the FBI from charging a fee for NICS checks,
and instead provides funding to the FBI for its costs to
operate the NICS.
FBI Technology Upgrade Plan.--The conference agreement
includes total funding of $100,700,000, 14 positions and 7
FTE, for this initiative (previously referred to as the
Information Sharing Initiative/e-FBI). This amount is to be
derived from $80,000,000 made available in prior years, and
$20,700,000 in fiscal year 2001 base funding. The House bill
proposed a total of $139,344,000 for this initiative, to be
derived from $80,000,000 in prior year funds, $20,000,000 in
fiscal year 2001 base funds, and $39,344,000 in fiscal year
2001 program increases. The Senate-reported amendment
proposed a total of $40,000,000 for this initiative, to be
derived from prior year funds, and eliminated $20,000,000 in
fiscal year 2001 base funding for this activity. The
conference agreement does not include the rescission of
$40,000,000 in prior year funds for these activities as
proposed under Title VII of the Senate-reported amendment.
The conference agreement approves the plan dated September
2000, entitled ``FBI Technology Upgrade Plan, Reprioritized
Three Year Implementation Plan.'' Therefore, the conference
agreement includes the full amount necessary for year one
costs as identified on page 47 of the September 2000
implementation plan. The FBI is directed to provide quarterly
status reports to the Committees on implementation of this
plan, including funding obligations, with the first such
report due no later than February 15, 2001.
National Infrastructure Protection/Computer Analysis
Response Teams (CART).--The FBI is directed to convert 14
part-time positions for Computer Analysis Response Teams
(CART) examiners to full-time positions from personnel not
currently assigned to computer intrusion/infrastructure
protection squads, similar to direction included in the
Senate report. The conference agreement also adopts the
direction included in the Senate report regarding training,
promotion and retention of CART members and computer
intrusion/infrastructure protection squads. The Senate
direction regarding development of a cadre of computer
experts from other agencies and the private sector is adopted
by reference.
Victim/Witness Specialists.--The conference agreement
includes a new general provision under Title I of this Act
authorizing funds to be provided to the FBI to improve
services for crime victims from the Crime Victims Fund. These
services are to be limited to victim assistance as described
in the Victims of Crime Act and shall not cover non-victim
witness activities such as witness protection or non-victim
witness management services, paralegal duties or community
outreach. The FBI is further directed to work with the Office
of Victims of Crime (OVC) in developing position
descriptions, grade level and hiring requirements, training
and annual reporting requests for these specialists. The
conference agreement assumes $7,400,000 will be needed to
support 112 victim/witness specialists to be distributed as
directed in the Senate report. The Committees on
Appropriations expect to be notified of the final
distribution of these specialists.
Other.--The Senate report language regarding copyright
enforcement, continued collaboration with the Southwest
Surety Institute, the Northern New Mexico anti-drug
initiative, mitochondrial DNA, crimes against children, and
background checks for school bus drivers is adopted by
reference. The conference agreement also adopts by reference
the House report language regarding the Housing Fraud
Initiative, the Jewelry and Gem program, and submission of a
comprehensive information technology report.
In addition, the FBI is directed to fully reimburse the
private ambulance providers for their costs in support of
Hostage Rescue Team operations in St. Martin Parish,
Louisiana, in December, 1999.
In addition to identical provisions that were included in
both the House bill and the Senate-reported amendment, the
conference agreement includes a provision, modified from
language proposed in the House bill, providing not to exceed
25,569 positions and 25,142 FTE for the FBI from funds
appropriated in this Act. The Senate-reported amendment did
not include a similar provision.
construction
The conference agreement includes $16,687,000 in direct
appropriations for construction for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), instead of $1,287,000 as proposed in the
House bill, and $42,687,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The agreement provides an increase of
$15,400,000 over the fiscal year 2000 level for the FBI
Academy firearms range modernization project, as follows:
$1,900,000 for relocation and consolidation of an ammunition
storage facility and for lead abatement at existing outdoor
ranges; and $13,500,000 for completion of Phase I and Phase
II of this project.
Drug Enforcement Administration
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $1,363,309,000 for the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Salaries and Expenses
account, instead of $1,362,309,000 as proposed in the House
bill, and $1,345,655,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. In
[[Page 24643]]
addition, $83,543,000 is derived from the Diversion Control
Fund for diversion control activities. The following
narrative reflects how the funds provided in the conference
agreement are to be spent.
Budget and Financial Management.--The conference agreement
adopts by reference the concerns and direction included in
both the House and Senate reports regarding budget and
financial management. The conference agreement also includes
a provision that identifies the funded position and FTE
levels provided in the bill, which are consistent with the
full base funding requested and program increases provided in
the conference agreement.
The following table represents funding provided under this
account:
DEA SALARIES AND EXPENSES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Pos. FTE Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement:
Domestic Enforcement.................... 2,252 2,183 $407,261
Foreign Cooperative Investigation....... 732 699 206,644
Drug and Chemical Diversion............. 142 143 16,156
State and Local Task Forces............. 1,678 1,675 242,257
-----------------------------
Subtotal.............................. 4,804 4,700 872,318
=============================
Investigative Support:
Intelligence............................ 883 900 112,904
Laboratory Services..................... 381 378 44,463
Training................................ 99 98 20,309
RETO.................................... 355 353 85,190
ADP..................................... 133 130 140,479
-----------------------------
Subtotal.............................. 1,851 1,859 403,345
Management and Administration........... 865 853 87,646
=============================
Total, DEA............................ 7,520 7,412 1,363,309
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA is reminded that any deviation from the above
distribution is subject to the reprogramming requirements of
section 605 of this Act.
The conference agreement provides a net increase of
$43,616,000 for base adjustments, as follows: increases
totaling $48,293,000 for pay and other inflationary costs to
maintain current operations, offset by decreases totaling
$4,677,000 for costs associated with one-time and non-
recurring equipment purchases, GSA rent decreases, and the
transfer of funding for a demand reduction project to the
Office of Justice Programs.
In addition, the conference agreement includes program
increases totaling $64,200,000, as follows:
Investigative and Intelligence Requirements.--$48,100,000
is provided for the following investigative and intelligence
enhancements:
$3,100,000, 19 positions (11 agents) and 9 FTE within
Domestic Enforcement for the Special Operations Division
(SOD) to expand support for the Southwest Border Initiative
and to address money laundering and financial investigations.
$43,000,000, 2 positions and 1 FTE within Automated Data
Processing to continue deployment of Phase II of FIREBIRD.
When combined with $44,870,000 in existing base resources, a
total of $87,870,000 is available for this program in fiscal
year 2001 to enable FIREBIRD to be fully deployed to all
domestic offices and Western Hemisphere offices. Of this
amount, $28,000,000 is for deployment, $10,477,000 is for
technology renewal, and $49,393,000 is for operations and
maintenance and telecommunications costs. DEA is directed to
continue to provide quarterly FIREBIRD status and obligation
reports to the Committees on Appropriations.
$2,000,000 within Intelligence, of which $1,800,000 is for
enhancements to the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), and
$200,000 is to meet expanded participation in the National
Drug Pointer Index (NDPIX) information system. The House
direction regarding a comprehensive report on participation
and utilization of EPIC is adopted by reference.
Domestic Enhancements.-- $14,600,000 is provided for the
following domestic counter-drug enhancements:
$4,600,000, 25 positions (15 agents) and 13 FTE within
Domestic Enforcement to establish an additional Regional
Enforcement Team (RET). This amount, when combined with
existing base resources, provides a total of $24,195,000 for
RETS in fiscal year 2001.
$1,500,000, 14 positions (9 agents) and 7 FTE within
Domestic Enforcement to enhance heroin enforcement, providing
a total of $30,291,000 in fiscal year 2001 for this effort,
as recommended in the Senate report. The Senate direction
regarding black tar heroin is adopted by reference.
$1,500,000 within Domestic Enforcement to enhance
methamphetamine enforcement, providing a total of $27,459,000
in fiscal year 2001 for this effort, as recommended in the
Senate report.
$1,000,000 within State and Local Task Forces to enhance
State and local methamphetamine training activities, as
recommended in the Senate report.
$6,000,000 within Research, Engineering and Technical
Operations (RETO) to procure three additional single-engine
helicopters for drug enforcement activities along the
Southwest border.
In addition, the conference agreement includes a total of
$20,000,000 under the Community Oriented Policing Services
Methamphetamine/Drug ``Hot Spots'' program to assist State
and local law enforcement agencies with the costs associated
with methamphetamine clean-up.
Budget and Financial Management.--$1,500,000, 8 positions
and 4 FTE within Program Management and Administration to
improve DEA's financial and resource management oversight,
including funds to support DEA's Federal Financial System and
for additional staffing for Finance and Resource Management.
Other.--The conference agreement includes a total of
$20,000,000 for the special investigative unit (SIU) program.
Within the amount available, DEA may establish a joint
Haitian/Dominican Republic SIU on the island of Hispaniola.
DEA is reminded that the Committees on Appropriations are to
be notified in accordance with section 605 of this Act prior
to the expansion of this program to any additional countries.
There are continued concerns about endemic corruption within
the Mexico SIU program which has severely limited its
effectiveness. DEA is directed to report to the Committees on
Appropriations no later than February 1, 2001, on progress
made in resolving these problems and recommendations to make
the Mexico program effective.
The conference agreement adopts by reference the direction
included in the House report regarding continued
participation in the HIDTA program, quarterly reports on
source and transit countries, quarterly reports on
implementation of the Caribbean initiative, and a report on
requirements in the region. The conference agreement does not
include funding under DEA for continuation of the demand
reduction initiative recommended in the House report, but has
instead transferred base funding for this program from DEA
Domestic Enforcement to the Office of Justice Programs. DEA
is also directed to better coordinate its operations with
other Federal agencies, including INS and the FBI, along the
Southwest Border, and to pursue co-location of offices
whenever practical. The direction included in the Senate
report regarding DEA's presence in Chile is adopted by
reference. Within the amounts provided under this account,
DEA may use up to $500,000 for a study on methods to
eliminate the effectiveness of anhydrous ammonia in
methamphetamine production, as authorized.
Drug Diversion Control Fee Account.--The conference
agreement provides $83,543,000 for DEA's Drug Diversion
Control Program for fiscal year 2001, as provided in the
House bill and the Senate-reported amendment. This amount
includes an increase of $3,213,000 for adjustments to base,
including the annualization of 25 positions provided in
fiscal year 2000 for customer service improvements and drug
data analysis. The conference agreement assumes that the
level of balances in the Fee Account are sufficient to fully
support diversion control programs in fiscal year 2001. As
was the case in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, no funds are
provided in the DEA Salaries and Expenses appropriation for
this account in fiscal year 2001.
The conference agreement includes bill language, modified
from language proposed in the House bill, providing not to
exceed 7,520 positions and 7,412 FTE for DEA from funds
provided in this Act. The Senate-reported amendment did not
include a similar provision.
construction
The conference agreement includes no new funding for this
account as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment, instead
of $5,500,000 as proposed in the House bill. A total of
$19,500,000 in prior year carryover balances is available to
fund planned fiscal year 2001 expenditures.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $3,125,876,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), instead of $3,121,213,000 as provided in the
House bill, and $2,895,397,000 as provided in the Senate-
reported amendment. In addition to the amounts appropriated,
the conference agreement assumes that $1,549,480,000 will be
available from offsetting fee collections instead of
$1,438,812,000 as proposed by the House and $1,524,771,000 as
proposed by the Senate. Thus, including resources provided
under the Construction account, the conference agreement
provides a total operating level of $4,808,658,000 for INS,
instead of $4,670,689,000 as proposed by the House and
$4,553,470,000 as proposed by the Senate, representing a
$548,242,000 (13%) increase over fiscal year 2000. The
following narrative reflects how funds provided in the
conference agreement are to be spent.
INS Organization and Management.--The conference agreement
incorporates concerns expressed in the House report that a
lack of resources is no longer an acceptable response to
INS's inability to adequately address its mission
responsibilities. The conference agreement includes the
establishment of clearer chains of command--one for
enforcement activities and one for services to non-citizens--
as one step towards making the INS a more efficient,
accountable, and effective agency. Consistent with the
concept of separating immigration enforcement from services,
the conference agreement continues to provide for a
separation of funds, as in the fiscal year 1999 and 2000
Appropriations Acts. The conference agreement separates funds
into two accounts, as requested in the budget and proposed in
the House bill: Enforcement and Border Affairs, and
Citizenship and
[[Page 24644]]
Benefits, Immigration Support and Program Direction. INS
enforcement funds are provided in the Enforcement and Border
Affairs account. All immigration-related benefits and
naturalization, support and program resources are provided in
the Citizenship and Benefits, Immigration Support and Program
Direction account. Neither account includes revenues
generated in various fee accounts to fund program activities
for both enforcement and services functions, which are in
addition to the appropriated funds and are discussed below.
Funds for INS construction projects continue to be provided
in the INS Construction account.
The conference agreement includes bill language which
provides authority for the Attorney General to transfer funds
from one account to another in order to ensure that funds are
properly aligned. Such transfers may occur notwithstanding
any transfer limitations imposed under this Act but such
transfers are still subject to the reprogramming requirements
under Section 605 of this Act. It is expected that any
request for transfer of funds will remain within the
activities under those headings.
The conference agreement includes $2,547,057,000 for
Enforcement and Border Affairs, and $578,819,000 for
Citizenship and Benefits, Immigration Support and Program
Direction.
Base adjustments.--The conference agreement provides a
total increase of $101,008,000 and 641 FTE for adjustments to
base for INS salaries and expenses, offset by a $89,000,000
and 404 FTE transfer to the INS Exams Fees account for the
naturalization and backlog reduction initiatives, as proposed
in the budget request. The conference agreement does not
include transfers to the Exams Fees account, the Breached/
Bond Detention account, and the Justice Prisoner Alien
Transportation System (JPATS) Fund, as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment.
For the Enforcement and Border Affairs account, the
conference agreement provides an increase of $86,255,000 and
889 FTE for pay and inflationary adjustments for Border
Patrol, Investigations, Detention and Deportation, and
Intelligence. This represents the full amount requested less
$11,770,000 for the annualization of border patrol agents not
yet hired, and $3,343,000 for the portion of the fiscal year
2000 annualized pay raise which has already been paid in the
current fiscal year. Funds have not been included for the
proposed increase in the journeyman level for border patrol
agents and immigration inspectors.
For the Citizenship and Benefits, Immigration Support and
Program Direction account, the conference agreement includes
an increase of $14,752,000 for pay and inflationary
adjustments for the existing activities of Citizenship and
Benefits, Immigration Support, and Management and
Administration; offset by a transfer of $89,000,000 in
naturalization and backlog reduction activities to the Exams
Fees account, as proposed in the budget. The amount provided
for base adjustments represents the full amount requested
less $690,000 for the portion of the fiscal year 2000
annualized pay raise which has already been paid in the
current fiscal year. In addition, $35,000,000 is continued
within the base to support naturalization and other benefits
processing backlog reduction activities.
None of these amounts include offsetting fees, which are
used to fund both enforcement and services functions.
In addition, program increases totaling $222,768,000 are
provided, as follows:
Border Control and Management.--$100,612,000 is provided
for additional border patrol staffing, technology, land
border inspections, and Joint Terrorism Task Forces, as
follows:
$52,000,000, 430 positions and 215 FTE, are for new border
patrol agents. It is noted that again in fiscal years 1999
and 2000, the INS has failed to hire the 1,000 new border
patrol agents provided in each of those years. Should the INS
be unable to recruit the required agents again in fiscal year
2001, the INS is to submit a reprogramming in accordance with
section 605 of this Act, prior to expenditure of the funds
provided for the hiring of border patrol agents for any other
purpose.
While some level of border control is being witnessed on
parts of the Southwest border, particularly in San Diego, as
a result of increased border patrol agents and technology, in
other areas of the country border control remains a growing
problem, particularly in the Northwest, Southeast, and other
areas of the Southwest border. The House report language
regarding consultation and submission of a deployment plan
for new border patrol agents and direction in the House
report regarding quarterly hiring status reports are adopted
by reference. Senate report language prohibiting the transfer
of any border patrol agents or technology from the Northwest
border to the Southwest border is also adopted by reference.
$33,835,000 is for additional border patrol equipment and
technology, for the following activities:
$598,000 is for replacement patrol boats to combat alien
smuggling on the Great Lakes, the Detroit River, Lake St.
Clair, and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
$17,500,000 is for the deployment of additional Integrated
Surveillance Intelligence Systems (ISIS) along the Northern
and Southern borders. When combined with existing base funds,
a total of $35,500,000 is available for ISIS. INS is directed
to consult with the Committees on Appropriations and provide
a deployment plan for these systems no later than December
15, 2001, which reflects the highest priority locations on
both the Northern and Southern borders.
$15,737,000 is for additional border patrol equipment and
technology. The conference agreement includes a total of
$30,737,000 for additional border patrol equipment and
technology, of which $15,737,000 is provided as a program
increase and $15,000,000 is to be derived from within
existing base resources. Funding provided is to be used for
high priority equipment, including fiber optic scopes, hand-
held search lights, vehicle infrared cameras, Global
Positioning Systems, infrared scopes, night vision goggles,
hand-held range-finder night vision binoculars, and pocket
scopes. INS is directed to provide a spending plan for these
funds to the Committees on Appropriations no later than
December 15, 2000.
$6,277,000, 72 positions and 36 FTE are for additional
inspectors at land border Ports of Entry (POE). INS is
directed to consult with the Committees on Appropriations and
provide a deployment plan no later than December 15, 2000
which reflects the highest priority locations for
distribution of these resources.
$7,000,000, 58 positions and 29 FTE are for additional
investigators and operational costs associated with INS
participation in Joint Terrorism Task Forces to address
immigration-related issues in terrorism cases.
Additionally, the conference agreement includes a
$1,500,000 increase for the Law Enforcement Support Center
(LESC), providing a total of $12,500,000 for the LESC in
fiscal year 2001.
The conference agreement adopts by reference the House
report language regarding the relocation of Tucson Sector
helicopter operations and related housing costs, a joint plan
on combating illegal immigration through Federal lands and
parks, and establishment of a joint task force to study
emergency medical services for illegal aliens.
Interior Enforcement/Removal of Deportable Aliens.--
$120,856,000 is provided for interior enforcement, including
the tracking, detention, and removal of aliens, as follows:
$87,306,000, 120 positions and 60 FTE are for an additional
1,167 detention beds, including 1,000 beds in State and local
facilities, and 120 juvenile detention beds, as proposed in
the House report.
$15,550,000 is for additional JPATS movements, as proposed
in the House report. The conference agreement does not
include the proposed transfer of funds from INS to the JPATS
Fund for this activity which was recommended in the Senate
report.
$11,000,000, 100 positions and 50 FTE are for 23 additional
Quick Response Teams, as proposed in the House report. The
House report language regarding consultation and submission
of a deployment plan and direction regarding quarterly status
reports are adopted by reference.
In addition, the conference agreement includes an
additional $3,000,000 under the Community Oriented Policing
Services program to expand the program to provide video-
teleconferencing equipment and technology to allow State and
local law enforcement to confirm the status of an alien
suspected of criminal activity.
$3,000,000, 28 positions and 14 FTE are for expansion of
the on-going Criminal Alien Apprehension Program (CAAP),
pursuant to Public Law 105-141. The Senate report language
regarding Salt Lake City is adopted by reference, and INS is
directed to report its intention regarding this matter to the
Committees on Appropriations no later than December 1, 2000.
The House report language regarding consultation and
submission of a deployment plan is adopted by reference.
$4,000,000, 26 positions and 13 FTE are for INS to enter
INS criminal alien records into the National Criminal
Information Center (NCIC) in order to address the current
backlog and to ensure that INS does not lose its NCIC
privileges. The direction included in the House report
regarding development of a comprehensive plan to address this
problem is adopted by reference.
Concerns have been expressed regarding the adequacy of the
current training course for Detention Enforcement Officers
(DEO) in light of the increasingly violent detainee
population and other factors. INS is directed to complete a
comprehensive assessment of its current DEO training course
and provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations no
later than July 1, 2001, with recommendations for
improvements.
The conference agreement reflects concerns regarding INS'
failure to vigorously pursue an effective interior
enforcement strategy, and adopts by reference the direction
included in the House report regarding quarterly reporting on
detention and removal orders. The Senate report language
regarding tuberculosis monitoring is also adopted by
reference.
Professionalism and Infrastructure.--The conference
agreement includes an increase of $1,300,000 for the Debt
Management Center, as proposed in the Senate report. INS is
expected to follow the direction included in the
[[Page 24645]]
Senate report regarding annualization of this increase in
fiscal year 2002.
IAFIS/IDENT.--The conference agreement adopts the
recommendation included in the House report directing that
$5,000,000 from within existing INS base funds available for
IDENT be transferred to the Justice Management Division to
continue the planned IAFIS/IDENT integration project,
including systems design and development work and additional
operational testing. INS is directed to comply with the
direction in the House report regarding further deployment of
IDENT.
Within the total amount available to INS, $2,103,000 is to
be used to establish the task force required by Public Law
106-215.
Services/Benefits.--The Congress has provided significant
additional resources to the INS over the past three years to
address the naturalization backlog, improve the integrity of
the naturalization process, and improve services. The
conference agreement provides a total of $1,004,851,000 for
these activities, $70,134,000 (7%) over the amount requested
in the budget, and $135,222,000 (16%) over the fiscal year
2000 level. However, serious concerns remain about the INS'
failure to manage its resources, and the Committees continue
to receive complaints from Members of Congress and their
constituents about the problems of backlogs in application
processing and casework, and deficiencies in other services.
Again this year, the conference agreement includes
significant additional resources, over and above the
President's budget request, for benefits and services.
Therefore, INS is directed to conduct a complete review of
staffing and resource needs to improve benefits and services
in all current INS offices, as well as the need for
additional offices, particularly in rural areas. INS is
directed to complete this review and report its findings to
the Committees on Appropriations, including a proposal to
reallocate resources as warranted, no later than December 15,
2000. As part of this review, the INS is directed to pay
particular attention to the following areas: Fort Smith,
Arkansas; Adak, Alaska; San Francisco, California; Ventura,
California; Washington, D.C.; Des Moines, Iowa; Louisville,
Kentucky; the Bronx, New York; New York, New York; Omaha,
Nebraska; Northern New Jersey; Las Vegas, NV; Greer, South
Carolina; Nashville, Tennessee; Roanoke, Virginia; and
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In addition, the conferees are
concerned with the diversion of resources from smaller rural
offices and direct INS to notify the Committees prior to the
reallocation of resources, including the temporary
reassignment of personnel, from the area identified in the
Senate report.
The conference agreement adopts by reference the direction
included in the House report regarding monthly reports on the
status of processing immigration benefits applications,
continuation of the San Jose customer service pilot, and a
report on unreviewed Citizenship USA cases, which is to be
submitted no later than November 1, 2000.
In addition to identical provisions included in both the
House bill and the Senate-reported amendment, the conference
agreement includes the following additional provisions, as
follows: (1) a limitation of $30,000 per individual employee
for overtime payments, as proposed in the House bill, instead
of $20,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment; (2)
a limitation on funding and staffing available to the Offices
of Legislative and Public Affairs, as proposed in the House
bill; (3) a prohibition on the use of funds to operate the
San Clemente and Temecula traffic checkpoints unless certain
conditions are met, as proposed in the House bill; and (4)
limitations on the number of positions and FTE provided to
INS in this Act, modified from language proposed in the House
bill.
OFFSETTING FEE COLLECTIONS
The conference agreement assumes $1,549,480,000 will be
available from offsetting fee collections, instead of
$1,438,812,000 as proposed in the House bill and
$1,524,771,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment,
to support activities related to the legal admission of
persons into the United States. These activities are funded
entirely by fees paid by persons who are either traveling
internationally or are applying for immigration benefits. The
following levels are recommended:
Immigration Inspections User Fees.--The conference
agreement includes $494,384,000 of spending from offsetting
collections in this account, the same amount proposed in
Senate report, and $15,505,000 above the amount included in
the House report. This amount represents a $38,999,000
increase over fiscal year 2000 spending, and does not assume
the addition of any new or increased fees on airline or
cruise ship passengers. The conference agreement includes
$18,489,000 for adjustments to base, the full amount
requested. In addition, program increases are provided as
follows: $12,186,000, 154 positions and 77 FTE to increase
primary inspectors at new airport terminals; and $8,324,000
to address additional staffing and other requirements.
Funding is not included for the proposed change in the
journeyman level for inspectors. INS is directed to consult
with Committees on Appropriations and to submit a spending
and deployment plan no later than December 1, 2000, which
allocates these additional resources to the highest priority
locations. Should additional fees become available, the INS
may submit a reprogramming in accordance with section 605 of
this Act.
Immigration Examinations Fees.--The conference agreement
includes a total of $1,004,851,000 to support the
adjudication of applications for immigration benefits,
instead of $918,717,000 as proposed in the House bill,
$841,017,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment,
and $934,617,000 as requested in the budget. These funds are
derived from offsetting collections in the Examinations Fees
account from persons applying for immigration benefits,
including collections from a new voluntary premium processing
fee as proposed in the House bill and the budget request, and
$35,000,000 in continued direct appropriations under the
Citizenship and Benefits, Immigration Support, and Program
Direction account. The conference agreement reflects the INS'
revised revenue estimates for collections from existing fees
which is $107,534,000 higher than the amount assumed in the
budget request, and $144,534,000 above the amount available
in fiscal year 2000. When combined with additional revenues
estimated from the new voluntary premium processing fee, the
total amount of collections available in the Examinations
Fees account for adjudication of immigration benefits is
$224,534,000 over the amount available in fiscal year 2000.
When combined with direct appropriations, the total amount
included in the conference agreement for benefits processing,
adjudication, and backlog reduction is an increase of
$70,134,000 (7%) above the budget request and $135,222,000
(16%) above the amount provided in fiscal year 2000.
Therefore, the conference agreement does not include the
reinstatement of section 245(i) as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. In addition, the conference agreement
does not adopt the transfer of $49,741,000 from Examinations
Fees funding to the Executive Office of Immigration Review
(EOIR); and the transfer of $50,000,000 in non-adjudication
related activities from the Salaries and Expenses account to
the Examinations Fees account which were proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment.
Within the Examinations Fees account, the conference
agreement provides the following: $25,676,000 for adjustments
to base; and program enhancements totaling $94,841,000, as
proposed in the House report, for the following activities:
(1) $16,000,000 for implementing premium business service
processing; (2) $7,500,000 for anti-fraud investigations
related to business-related visa applications and marriage
fraud; (3) $13,000,000 for the telephone customer service
center, for a total of $43,000,000, the full amount
requested; (4) $4,200,000 for the indexing and conversion of
INS microfilm images, for a total of $7,200,000; and (5)
$53,641,000 for replacement of the case tracking system and
hardware in field offices and continued development and
installation of digital photography and signature
capabilities in the Application Support Centers. Included
within these amounts is $6,000,000 for installation of the
CLAIMS 4 system in the Los Angeles, California district
office which will complete nationwide deployment of the
system. INS is directed to submit a spending plan in
accordance with the reprogramming procedures set forth in
section 605 of this Act which allocates the remaining
$51,134,000 in additional resources made available in the
Exams Fees account, and the $35,000,000 in continued direct
appropriations provided for backlog reduction initiatives.
The INS is directed to make available to EOIR from the INS
Examinations Fees account not less than $1,000,000 to be
applied toward expenditures related to EOIR's acquisition of
contract court interpreter services for immigration court
proceedings.
Land Border Inspections Fees.--The conference agreement
includes $1,670,000 in spending from the Land Border
Inspection Fund, as proposed in the Senate report, instead of
$1,641,000 as proposed in the House report. The current
revenues generated in this account are from Dedicated
Commuter Lanes in Blaine and Port Roberts, Washington,
Detroit Tunnel and Ambassador Bridge, Michigan, and Otay
Mesa, California, and from Automated Permit Ports that
provide pre-screened local border residents' border crossing
privileges by means of automated inspections.
Immigration Breached Bond/Detention Fund.--The conference
agreement includes $80,600,000 in spending from the Breached
Bond/Detention Fund, as proposed in the House report, instead
of $130,634,000 as proposed in the Senate report, and
reflects the current estimate of revenues available in the
Fund in fiscal year 2001 based upon current law. The
conference agreement does not assume the reinstatement of
Section 245(i), which was proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment and the budget request. Instead, the conference
agreement provides a $37,480,000 increase in the INS Salaries
and Expenses account to fully fund the detention requirements
requested in the Fund, but for which revenues are
insufficient in fiscal year 2001. The agreement does not
include the base transfer to the Breached Bond/Detention Fund
account, as proposed in the Senate report.
[[Page 24646]]
Immigration Enforcement Fines.--The conference agreement
includes $1,850,000 in spending from Immigration Enforcement
fines, the amount requested and proposed in the House report,
instead of $5,593,000 as proposed in the Senate report.
H-1B Fees.--The conference agreement includes $1,125,000 in
spending from the H-1B Fee account, the amount requested and
the amount proposed in the House report, instead of
$1,473,000 as proposed in the Senate report.
CONSTRUCTION
The conference agreement includes $133,302,000 for
construction for INS, as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of $110,664,000 as proposed in the House
bill. This amount fully funds the Administration's request,
funds $5,000,000 in habitability, life safety, and other
improvements at the Charleston Border Patrol Academy, and
provides increases over the requested amount of $7,353,000
for one-time build out and $9,814,000 for maintenance,
repair, and alteration to accelerate these programs.
The conference agreement includes language, as proposed in
the House bill and carried in prior Appropriations Acts,
prohibiting funds from being used for site acquisition,
design, or construction of a checkpoint in the Tucson Sector.
The Senate-reported amendment did not include a similar
provision.
Federal Prison System
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $3,476,889,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Federal Prison System, instead
of $3,430,596,000 as proposed in the House bill and
$3,573,729,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
The agreement assumes that, in addition to the amounts
appropriated, $31,000,000 will be available for necessary
operations from unobligated carryover balances from the prior
year.
The conference agreement includes funding to begin and or
complete the activation of the following facilities:
Victorville, CA..............................................$5,882,000
Houston, TX.....................................................637,000
Brooklyn, NY..................................................8,131,000
Philadelphia, PA..............................................5,718,000
Butner, NC...................................................11,808,000
Loretto, PA expansion...........................................613,000
Pollock, LA..................................................33,511,000
Atwater, CA..................................................22,316,000
Coleman, FL..................................................10,235,000
Honolulu, HI.................................................14,119,000
Ft. Dix, NJ expansion.........................................4,893,000
Yazoo City, MS expansion........................................674,000
Lompoc, CA expansion............................................907,000
El Paso, TX expansion.........................................2,357,000
Seagoville, TX expansion......................................1,208,000
Jesup, GA expansion.............................................200,000
The conference agreement provides an additional $500,000
for the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to study
whether the location of illegal alien holding facilities
along the Southern border of the United States contributes to
the illegal immigration problems in this country. The
conference agreement includes $4,000,000 for the NIC to
address issues related to children of prisoners, as described
in the Senate report. Of the amounts provided, up to
$1,000,000 shall be for the NIC to address the issue of staff
sexual misconduct involving female inmates as described in
the Senate report.
The conference agreement provides $100,000 for
implementation of a pilot internship program at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Yazoo City, MS as described in
the Senate report. The conference agreement adopts the Senate
report language directing BOP to continue to assess the
feasibility of construction of a high security facility in
Yazoo City, MS as described in the Senate report.
The conference agreement includes a $3,000,000 enhancement
for education programming instead of the $7,433,000
requested. If additional resources become available either
through prior year unobligated balances or as a result of
savings in fiscal year 2001, BOP is expected to fund these
additional costs.
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
The conference agreement includes $835,660,000 for
construction, modernization, maintenance and repair of prison
and detention facilities housing Federal prisoners, the same
level as provided in the House bill, instead of $724,389,000
as provided in the Senate-reported amendment. The conference
agreement provides $681,271,000 for construction of new
facilities as outlined below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Facility Amount
Facilities with prior funding:
FCI Forrest City, AR..........................................$95,814
FCI Yazoo City, MS.............................................86,884
USP Lompoc, CA................................................118,111
FCI Butner, NC.................................................83,111
FCI Victorville, CA...........................................116,838
FCI Herlong/Sierra, CA........................................116,861
Facilities with no prior funding:
USP Western....................................................11,930
USP Southeastern...............................................11,931
FCI Southeastern................................................5,430
FCI Mid-Atlantic................................................5,430
FCI Midwestern..................................................5,431
FCI Western.....................................................6,000
FCI South Central...............................................5,000
FCI Northeast...................................................5,000
FCI Mid-Atlantic................................................5,000
Mid-Atlantic Female.............................................2,000
Alaska Prison Study...............................................500
________________
Total.......................................................681,271
After reviewing numerous sites in South Carolina, the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) narrowed its focus on four potential
locations that would be suitable for the construction of
correctional facilities. Following a comprehensive
Environmental Impact Study completed in April, 2000, the BOP
identified two preferred sites in Williamsburg and Marlboro
Counties. A Record of Decision (ROD) for the Salters site,
Williamsburg County was signed by the Director, BOP on July
19, 2000. On the same date, the ROD was signed for the
Bennetsville site, Marlboro County. The BOP is in the process
of procuring a design/build contract for the Salters site and
is proceeding with the second preferred site, consistent with
the ROD and the fiscal year 2001 request.
The Senate provided $7,954,000 to plan and design a prison
in Alaska while the House included no such funding. The
managers note that there is no Federal prison in Alaska and
State prisons are severely overcrowded and are operating
under a court order requiring some prisoners to be
transported to lower 48 State prisons. Likewise, Federal
prisoners in Alaska must be transported by commercial air to
Federal facilities thousands of miles away at a huge cost to
taxpayers.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is directed to
prepare a feasibility study on the need for a new prison in
Alaska including the number of Federal prisoners who would be
housed, the types of detention, rehabilitation, vocational
and educational facilities that would be required, and the
potential to lease surplus beds to the State of Alaska to
reduce its prison overcrowding. The report should also
analyze the costs of construction, the cost savings that
would be realized from reduced prisoner transportation costs,
and potential financing options, including State
contributions and private financing and operation. The
managers have provided $500,000 for the study which should be
conducted in consultation with the U.S. Marshal for Alaska,
the Chief Judge of the United States District Court, the
Alaska Commissioner of Corrections and private parties or
non-profit corporations with an interest in prison issues.
The report should be submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by March 15, 2001.
Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated
(LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES)
The conference agreement includes a limitation on
administrative expenses of $3,429,000, as requested and as
proposed in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment.
Office of Justice Programs
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
The conference agreement includes $418,219,000 for Justice
Assistance, instead of $307,611,000 as proposed in the House
bill and $426,403,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. The conference agreement includes the following:
National Institute of Justice...............................$70,000,000
Defense/Law Enforcement Technology Transfer..............(12,277,000)
Bureau of Justice Statistics.................................28,755,000
Missing Children.............................................23,048,000
Regional Information Sharing System..........................25,000,000
National White Collar Crime Center............................9,250,000
Management and Administration................................41,186,000
________________
Subtotal................................................197,239,000
================
Counterterrorism Programs:
Equipment.................................................109,400,000
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Program................................20,980,000
Training...................................................45,500,000
Exercises...................................................7,000,000
Technical Assistance........................................2,000,000
Counterterrorism Research and Development..................36,100,000
________________
Subtotal................................................220,980,000
================
Total, Bureau of Justice Assistance.....................418,219,000
National Institute of Justice (NIJ).--The conference
agreement provides $70,000,000 for the National Institute of
Justice, instead of $41,448,000 as proposed in the House bill
and $46,000,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
Additionally, $5,200,000 for NIJ research and evaluation on
the causes and impact of domestic violence is provided under
the Violence Against Women Grants program; $17,500,000 is
provided from within technology funding in the Community
Oriented Policing Services account to be available to NIJ to
develop new, more effective safety technologies for safe
schools; and $20,000,000 is provided to NIJ, as was provided
in previous fiscal years, within the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant for assisting local units to identify, select,
develop, modernize and purchase new technologies for use by
law enforcement.
[[Page 24647]]
The conference agreement adopts by reference the following
recommendations in the House report which are within the
overall amounts provided to NIJ. The Office of Justice
Programs is expected to review proposals, provide grants if
warranted, and report to the Committees on its intentions
regarding: a grant at the current year level for information
technology applications for High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas; a grant for the Snohomish County Medical Examiner's
Office to assist in the development of a new death
investigation module for the FBI's ViCAP system; and a
$1,800,000 grant for facial recognition.
The conference agreement adopts the following
recommendations in the Senate report that provides that
within the overall amount provided to NIJ, the Office of
Justice Programs is expected to review proposals, provide
grants if warranted, and report to the Committees on
Appropriations on its intentions regarding: a $400,000 grant
for continued research into non-toxic drug detection and
identification aerosol technology; a $300,000 grant for
Washington State Breaking the Cycle; and a $100,000 grant for
perfluorocarbon tracer.
Within the amount provided, the conference agreement
directs that increased amounts over fiscal year 2000 be made
available for computerized identification systems and the DNA
Research Technology and Development Program, as proposed in
the Senate report.
The conference agreement provides $15,000,000 for an
education and development initiative to promote criminal
justice excellence at Eastern Kentucky University in
conjunction with the University of Kentucky.
The conference agreement includes $600,000 for NIJ to
develop, test, and validate a prototype national
Vulnerability Assessment (VA) methodology for assessing the
security of chemical facilities against terrorist and
criminal attacks, consistent with the requirements of Public
Law 106-40. This report is expected to include
recommendations for the Attorney General on the appropriate
security classification and public release of information
likely to be generated by a national VA of chemical
facilities, including an analysis of expected risks and
benefits. One year after enactment of this Act, the Attorney
General shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations a
comprehensive report on the findings derived from the
development of the VA methodology. The information contained
in this report will be used only to describe and validate
conditions at chemical facilities in general and will contain
no identifications of specific chemical facilities.
Defense/Law Enforcement Technology Transfer.--Within the
total amount provided to NIJ, the conference agreement
includes $12,277,000 to assist NIJ, in conjunction with the
Department of Defense, in converting non-lethal defense
technology to law enforcement use. Within the amount provided
is funding for the continuation of the law enforcement
technology center network, which provides States with
information on new equipment and technologies, as well as
assisting law enforcement agencies in locating high cost/low
use equipment for use on a temporary or emergency basis. The
current year level is provided for the technology
commercialization initiative at the National Technology
Transfer Center and other law enforcement technology centers.
The current year level is provided for the Center for Rural
Law Enforcement Technology and Training to evaluate and
assist in providing technology needs of rural State and local
law enforcement officers, as part of the National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC)
system. $1,500,000 is also provided to develop plans to
establish a National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center in Alaska as described in the Senate
report.
The conference agreement includes an $8,000,000 increase
for smart gun technology research and development.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).--The conference
agreement provides $28,755,000 for the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, instead of $25,505,000 as proposed in the House
bill and $27,305,000 as proposed by the Senate-reported
amendment. The recommendation includes $500,000 for
inflationary cost increases, $725,000 to collect Computer
Crime and Cyber-Fraud Statistics as described in the Senate
report and $2,000,000 for tribal criminal justice statistics.
Missing Children.--The conference agreement provides
$23,048,000 for the Missing Children Program instead of
$25,473,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment and
$19,952,000 as proposed in the House bill. Within the amounts
provided the conference agreement assumes the following:
(1) $9,298,000 for the Missing Children Program within the
Office of Justice Programs, Justice Assistance, including the
following: $6,500,000 for State and local law enforcement to
continue specialized cyberunits and to form new units to
investigate and prevent child sexual exploitation which are
based on the protocols for conducting investigations
involving the Internet and online service providers that have
been established by the Department of Justice and the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
(2) $11,450,000 for the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, of which $100,000 is provided for a case
manager as described in the Senate report; $2,250,000 is for
CyberTipline, Cyperspace training and continuation of a study
regarding the victimization of children on the Internet as
described in the Senate report. Additional funding is also
provided for a legal and technical assistance section. OJP is
directed to work with the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children to identify law enforcement agencies which
currently utilize computers in their patrol vehicles and
create a program to use computers to disseminate information
on missing children as described in the Senate report.
(3) $2,300,000 for the Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training
Center for training of State and local law enforcement
officials investigating missing and exploited children cases.
Regional Information Sharing System (RISS).--The conference
agreement includes $25,000,000 for RISS, instead of
$20,000,000 and a $5,000,000 transfer from the COPS program
as proposed in the House bill and $30,000,000 as proposed in
the Senate- reported amendment.
White Collar Crime Information Center.--The conference
agreement includes $9,250,000 for the National White Collar
Crime Center (NWCCC), as proposed in the House bill, instead
of no funding as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
Counterterrorism Assistance.--The conference agreement
includes a total of $220,980,000 to continue the initiative
to prepare, equip, and train State and local entities to
respond to incidents of chemical, biological, radiological,
and other types of domestic terrorism, instead of
$152,000,000 as proposed in the House bill and $257,000,000
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. Funding is
provided as follows:
Equipment.--$109,400,000 is provided for grants to equip
State and local first responders, including, but not limited
to, firefighters and emergency services personnel, as
follows:
$97,000,000 for Domestic Preparedness Equipment Grants to
be used to procure specialized equipment required by State
and local first responders to respond to terrorist incidents
involving chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The conference agreement
continues the direction included in the fiscal year 2000
Appropriations Act, allowing funds to be allocated only in
accordance with an approved State plan, and adopts the
direction included in the Senate report requiring 80 percent
of each State's funding to be provided to local communities
with the greatest need. Within the total amount provided for
these grants, up to $2,000,000 shall be made available for
continued support of the Domestic Preparedness Equipment
Technical Assistance program at the Pine Bluff Arsenal;
$5,000,000 is for equipment grants for State and local bomb
technicians, instead of $10,000,000 as proposed in the House
report; and
$7,400,000 is for pre-positioned equipment, as proposed in
the Senate report.
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Program (NLD).--$20,980,000 is for the
NLD Domestic Preparedness Program authorized under the
National Defense Authorization Act, 1997, and previously
funded by the Department of Defense, to provide training and
other assistance to the 120 largest U.S. cities. On April 6,
2000, the President proposed the transfer of responsibility
for completion of the NLD program to the Department of
Justice. The conference agreement provides the full amount
necessary to complete the NLD program, of which $8,100,000 is
for training and $6,880,000 is for exercises for the
remainder of the 120 cities; $3,000,000 is for Improved
Response Plans; and $3,000,000 is for management and
administrative costs associated with this program. Within the
amounts provided for Domestic Preparedness Equipment grants,
the Office of Justice Programs may provide equipment to NLD
cities if such equipment is necessary to fulfill the
requirements of the program. The conference agreement
includes a series of new programs to address training and
exercise requirements on a national basis, and expects the
Office of Justice Programs to provide any future training and
exercises assistance through these programs. The Senate
report language regarding administration of this program is
adopted by reference.
Training.--$45,500,000 is for training programs for State
and local first responders, to be distributed as follows:
$33,500,000 is for the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium, of which $15,500,000 is for the Center for
Domestic Preparedness at Ft. McClellan, Alabama, including
$500,000 for management and administration of the Center;
$5,250,000 is for the Texas Engineering Extension Service at
Texas A&M; and $12,750,000 is to be equally divided among the
three other Consortium members;
$8,000,000 is for additional training programs to address
emerging training needs not provided for by the Consortium or
elsewhere. In distributing these funds, OJP is expected to
consider the needs of firefighters and emergency services
personnel, and State and local law enforcement;
$3,000,000 is for continuation of distance learning
training programs at the National
[[Page 24648]]
Terrorism Preparedness Institute at the Southeastern Public
Safety Institute to provide training through advanced
distributive learning technology and other mechanisms; and
$1,000,000 is for continuation of the State and Local
Antiterrorism Training Program.
Exercises.--$7,000,000 is for exercise programs, of which
$4,000,000 is for grants to assist State and local
jurisdictions in planning and conducting exercises to enhance
their response capabilities, and $3,000,000 is for planning,
execution, and analysis of TOPOFF II. The direction included
in the Senate report regarding distribution of exercises
grants in accordance with approved State plans is adopted by
reference.
Technical Assistance.--$2,000,000 is for technical
assistance to States and localities, as proposed in the
Senate report.
Counterterrorism Research and Development.--$36,100,000 is
for counterterrorism research and development, of which
$18,000,000 is for the Dartmouth Institute for Security
Technology Studies (ISTS), $18,000,000 is for the Oklahoma
City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of
Terrorism (MIPT), and $100,000 is for a pilot project to
develop an RDT&E system similar to the Department of Defense
System, as proposed in the Senate report. Within the amount
provided for MIPT, up to $4,000,000 is to be used to support
the development of performance standards in a biological and
chemical environment for respirators and personal protective
garments. The MIPT and the ISTS are directed to work with the
Technical Support Working Group and the National Domestic
Preparedness Office to develop and implement a process
whereby WMD equipment is standardized.
The conference agreement includes language modified from
language included in the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment providing funding for counterterrorism programs.
Management and Administration.--The conference agreement
includes $41,186,000 for Management and Administration,
instead of $39,456,000 as proposed by the House, and
$40,125,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conference
agreement adopts the House report language concerning the
reorganization of the Office of Justice Programs and the
submission of a report on the implementation of the
reorganization by December 31, 2000.
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE
The conference agreement includes $2,848,929,000 for State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, instead of
$2,823,950,000 as proposed in the House bill, and
$1,475,254,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
The conference agreement provides for the following programs:
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant..........................$523,000,000
Boys and Girls Clubs.....................................(60,000,000)
Law Enforcement Technology...............................(20,000,000)
State Prison Grants.........................................686,500,000
Cooperative Agreement Program............................(35,000,000)
Indian Country Earmark...................................(34,000,000)
Alien Incarceration.....................................(165,000,000)
State Environmental Impact Statements.....................(2,000,000)
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.....................400,000,000
Indian Tribal Courts Program..................................8,000,000
Byrne Discretionary Grants...................................69,050,000
Byrne Formula Grants........................................500,000,000
Drug Courts..................................................50,000,000
Juvenile Crime Block Grant..................................250,000,000
Violence Against Women Act Programs.........................288,679,000
State Prison Drug Treatment..................................63,000,000
Indian Country Alcohol and Crime Prevention...................5,000,000
Missing Alzheimer's Patient Program.............................900,000
Law Enforcement Family Support Programs.......................1,500,000
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention................................1,300,000
Senior Citizens Against Marketing Scams.......................2,000,000
________________
Total.................................................2,848,929,000
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant.--The conference
agreement includes $523,000,000 for the Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant program, as proposed in the House bill, instead
of $400,000,000, as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, in order to continue the commitment to provide
local governments with the resources and flexibility to
address specific crime problems in their communities with
their own solutions. Within the amount provided, the
conference agreement includes language providing $60,000,000
to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. In addition, the
conference agreement extends the set-aside for law
enforcement technology, as proposed in both the House bill
and the Senate-reported amendment.
State Prison Grants.--The conference agreement includes
$686,500,000 for State Prison Grants as proposed in the House
bill, instead of $76,000,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. Of the amount provided, $450,500,000 is
available to States to build and expand prisons, $165,000,000
is available to States for the reimbursement of the costs of
incarceration of criminal aliens, $35,000,000 is available
for the Cooperative Agreement Program, $34,000,000 is
available for Indian tribes, and $2,000,000 is available for
review of State environmental impact statements to determine
compliance with Federal requirements and ensure that State
projects are not delayed.
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.--The conference
agreement provides a total of $565,000,000 for the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program for payment to the States
for the costs of incarceration of criminal aliens, instead of
$50,000,000, as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment and
$585,000,000 as proposed in the House bill. Of the total
amount, the conference agreement includes $400,000,000 under
this account for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
and $165,000,000 for this purpose under the State Prison
Grants program, as proposed by the House bill.
Indian Tribal Courts.--The conference agreement includes
$8,000,000, instead of $5,000,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment, and no funding in the House bill, to
assist tribal governments in the development, enhancement,
and continuing operation of tribal judicial systems by
providing resources for the necessary tools to sustain safer
and more peaceful communities.
Edward Byrne Grants to States.--The conference agreement
provides $569,050,000 for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, of which
$69,050,000 is discretionary grants and $500,000,000 is
provided for formula grants under this program.
Byrne Discretionary Grants.--The conference agreement
provides $69,050,000 for discretionary grants under the
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Assistance Program to
be administered by Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA),
instead of $52,000,000 as proposed in the House bill and the
Senate-reported amendment. Within the amount provided for
discretionary grants, OJP is expected to review the following
proposals, provide grants if warranted, and report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House and the Senate on
its intentions:
$2,000,000 for the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE
AMERICA) program;
$1,600,000 for continued support for the expansion of
Search Group, Inc. and the national Technical Assistance and
Training Program to assist States, such as West Virginia, to
accelerate the automation of fingerprint identification
processes;
$4,400,000 for the National Crime Prevention Council to
continue and expand the National Citizens Crime Prevention
Campaign, McGruff;
$800,000 for the Haymarket Center;
$5,000,000 for Project HomeSafe for safety packets which
include a gun locking device and information on how to handle
and store guns safely as described in the Senate report;
$150,000 for the Ottawa County, MI, Sheriff's Department to
support crime fighting technologies;
$1,000,000 for the Tools for Tolerance Program;
$500,000 for the Littleton Area Learning Center;
$4,500,000 for the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys to
support the National District Attorneys Association's
participation in legal education training at the National
Advocacy Center;
$2,000,000 for the Youth Safe Haven program;
$1,900,000 for the Families and Schools Together (FAST)
program;
$1,500,000 for Project Return in New Orleans, LA;
$2,000,000 for the Alaska Native Justice Center;
$400,000 for the Ridge House in Reno, NV;
$3,000,000 for a grant to the National Center for Justice
and the Rule of Law at the University of Mississippi School
of Law to sponsor research and produce judicial education
seminars and training for judges, court personnel,
prosecutors, police agencies, and attorneys;
$350,000 for a grant to Turtle Mountain Community College's
Department of Justice for ``Project Peacemaker'';
$300,000 for the Chattanooga Endeavors program;
$750,000 for a grant to the University of Kentucky College
of Law for teleconferencing equipment for prosecutor
training;
$1,000,000 for the Fels Center at the University of
Pennsylvania for a demonstration fellowship project;
$1,400,000 for rural alcohol interdiction, investigations,
and prosecutions in the State of Alaska;
$150,000 for the MUSC Innovative Alternatives for Women
program;
$750,000 for the Nevada National Judicial College;
$3,000,000 for a grant for the National Fatherhood
Initiative;
$190,000 to the Hampshire County, MA, TRIAD project;
$450,000 for the Gospel Rescue Mission;
$2,250,000 the Washington Metropolitan Area Drug
Enforcement Task Force and for expansion of the regional gang
tracking system;
[[Page 24649]]
$2,000,000 for the Rural Crime Prevention and Prosecution
program;
$1,000,000 for the Night Light program in San Bernardino,
CA to assign probation officers to patrol with law
enforcement during peak crime hours;
$800,000 for the Illegal Firearms Reduction Program in
Illinois;
$850,000 for the DuPage County Children's Sexual Abuse
Center;
$1,000,000 for Operation NITRO (Narcotics Interdiction To
Reduce Open-Air Drug Markets) in Newark, NJ;
$1,800,000 for the Center for Rural Law Enforcement
Technology and Training;
$2,505,000 for Kentucky Child Advocacy Centers;
$1,000,000 for a community court pilot project in Los
Angeles, CA;
$1,000,000 for a Neighborhood Policing Initiative for the
Homeless in Clearwater, FL;
$1,000,000 for the National Children's Advocacy Center in
Huntsville, Alabama for a Child Abuse Investigation and
Prosecution Enhancement Initiative;
$1,100,000 for the National Training and Information
Center;
$1,000,000 for the Doe Fund's Ready, Willing and Able
program;
$30,000 for the Crimestoppers program in Lexington, KY, to
expand its efforts to involve citizens in crime prevention;
$1,000,000 for the Ben Clark Public Safety Training program
for law enforcement officers;
$3,000,000 for the Regional Mobile Gang Task Force
Enforcement Team in Orange County, CA;
$500,000 for the Local Initiative Support Corporation;
$300,000 for the National Association of Town Watch's
National Night Out crime prevention program;
$2,000,000 for a Spokane County crime task force for costs
associated with State and local investigations;
$750,000 for Operation Child Haven;
$150,000 for the Samantha Reid Foundation;
$500,000 for the Sunflower House in Shawnee, KS; and
$400,000 for the Domestic Violence Services for Women in
Substance Abuse Treatment and Substance Abuse Treatment for
Women in Domestic Violence Shelters project at the University
of Northern Iowa.
The conference agreement adopts the Senate report language
supporting the national motor vehicle title information
system. Within available resources for Byrne discretionary
grants, OJP is urged to review proposals, and provide grants
if warranted, to the Alaska Federation of Natives and the
Alaska court system for an alcohol law offenders program
using Naltrexone and other drug therapies.
Byrne Formula Grants.--The conference agreement provides
$500,000,000 for the Byrne Formula Grant program as proposed
in the House bill, instead of $400,000,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment.
Drug Courts.--The conference agreement includes $50,000,000
for drug courts, instead of $40,000,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment and the House bill. Localities may
also obtain funding for drug courts under the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant program and the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant program.
The conference agreement recognizes that there are
currently over 480 drug courts in the United States. These
drug courts play an important role in controlling the
behavior and drug addiction of drug-using offenders across
the Nation. Among these courts, there are only three
comprehensive drug court systems in the country, one of which
is in Denver, Colorado. Denver's adult drug court was
established in 1994 and recently a juvenile drug court was
established. The conference agreement recognizes the Denver
concept has demonstrated its efficacy and, with sufficient
resources, could serve as a model for other drug courts.
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant.--The
conference agreement provides $250,000,000 for the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant program to address the
problem of juvenile crime as proposed in the House bill
instead of $100,000,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment.
Violence Against Women Act Grants.--The conference
agreement includes $288,679,000 for grants to support the
Violence Against Women Act, instead of $283,750,000 as
proposed in the House bill, and $284,854,000 as proposed in
the Senate- reported amendment. The conference agreement
provides funding under this account as follows:
General Grants............................................$210,179,000
Civil Legal Assistance...................................(31,625,000)
National Institute of Justice.............................(5,200,000)
OJJDP-Safe Start Program.................................(10,000,000)
Violence on College Campuses.............................(11,000,000)
Victims of Child Abuse Programs:
Court-Appointed Special Advocates.........................11,500,000
Training for Judicial Personnel............................2,000,000
Grants for Televised Testimony.............................1,000,000
Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies.........................34,000,000
Rural Domestic Violence.....................................25,000,000
Training Programs............................................5,000,000
________________
Total..................................................288,679,000
State Prison Drug Treatment.--The conference agreement
includes $63,000,000 for substance abuse treatment programs
within State and local correctional facilities, as proposed
in the House bill and the Senate-reported amendment. The
conference agreement prohibits funding in this program from
being used for aftercare programs.
Indian Country Alcohol and Crime Prevention.--The
conference agreement includes $5,000,000 for demonstration
grants on alcohol abuse and crime in Indian country. No
funding was proposed for this program in either the House
bill or the Senate-reported amendment. These funds are only
available for law enforcement activities.
Safe Return Program.--The conference agreement includes
$900,000 as proposed in the both the House bill and the
Senate-reported amendment.
Law Enforcement Family Support.--The conference agreement
includes $1,500,000 for law enforcement family support
programs, as proposed in both the Senate-reported amendment
and the House bill.
Senior Citizens Against Marketing Scams.--The conference
agreement includes $2,000,000 for programs to assist law
enforcement in preventing and stopping marketing scams
against senior citizens, as proposed by both the House bill
and the Senate-reported amendment. The conference agreement
adopts by reference the Senate report language on the
National Advocacy Center and coordinating with the Federal
Trade Commission.
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention.--The conference agreement
includes $1,300,000 for grants to combat motor vehicle theft
as proposed in the House bill.
The conference agreement adopts the House report language
by reference concerning false residential and commercial
alarms. The conference agreement also includes language
proposed in the House bill providing for Guam to be
considered a State under the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant program and the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block
Grant program.
WEED AND SEED PROGRAM
The conference agreement includes a direct appropriation of
$34,000,000 for the Weed and Seed program, instead of
$33,500,000 proposed by the House bill and $40,000,000 as
proposed by the Senate-reported amendment. The conference
agreement includes the expectation that an additional
$6,500,000 will be made available from the Assets Forfeiture
Super Surplus Fund.
Community Oriented Policing Services
The conference agreement includes $1,032,325,000 for the
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, instead
of $812,025,000 in the Senate-reported amendment and
$595,000,000 in the House bill. This conference agreement
assumes that $5,000,000 will be available to the program in
unobligated balances, providing for a total program level of
$1,037,325,000.
Police Hiring Initiatives.--The conference agreement
includes $470,000,000 for police hiring initiatives. Of this
amount $180,000,000 is provided specifically for school
resource officers and $35,000,000 is provided specifically
for hiring police officers for Indian Country, with an
additional $5,000,000 from unobligated carryover balances
from fiscal year 2000 for Indian Country grants. Since fiscal
year 1998, the COPS program has recovered over $100,000,000
per year in prior year funds. The conference agreement
includes a provision requiring the COPS program office to
submit a reprogramming request to the Committees on
Appropriations before spending any funds made available
through prior year deobligations, with an exception for
program management and administration funding.
Safe Schools Initiative (SSI).--To address the issue of
violence in our schools, the conference agreement includes
$227,500,000 for the Safe Schools Initiative (SSI), including
funds for technology development, prevention, community
planning and school safety officers. Within this total,
$180,000,000 is from the COPS hiring program to provide
school resource officers who will work in partnership with
schools and other community-based entities to develop
programs to improve the safety of elementary and secondary
school children and educators in and around schools;
$15,000,000 is from the Juvenile Justice At-Risk Children's
Program and $15,000,000 is from the COPS program ($30,000,000
total) for programs aimed at preventing violence in schools
through partnerships with schools and community-based
organizations; and $17,500,000 is provided from the Crime
Identification Technology Program to NIJ to develop
technologies to improve school safety.
Indian Country.--The conference agreement includes a total
of $40,000,000 to improve law enforcement capabilities on
Indian lands, both for hiring uniformed officers and for the
purchase of equipment and training for new and existing
officers, as proposed by the Senate. Of the $40,000,000 for
this program, $35,000,000 is from direct appropriations and
$5,000,000 is from unobligated balances.
Management and Administration.--The conference agreement
includes language that
[[Page 24650]]
provides that not to exceed $31,825,000 shall be expended for
management and administration of the program.
Non-Hiring Initiatives.--The COPS program reached its
original goal of funding 100,000 officers in May of 1999.
Accordingly, the conference agreement funds initiatives to
ensure there is adequate infrastructure for the new police
officers, similar to the focus that has been provided Federal
law enforcement. This will enable police officers to work
more efficiently, equipped with the protection, tools, and
technology they need; to address crime in and around schools;
to provide law enforcement technology for local law
enforcement; to combat the emergence of methamphetamine in
new areas and police ``hot spots'' of drug market activity;
and to make more bullet proof vests available for local law
enforcement officers and correctional officers. In addition,
the conference agreement provides funding for Community and
Gun Violence Prosecutors, law enforcement costs associated
with Offender Reentry programs and Police Integrity training.
The conference agreement includes funding for the following
non-hiring grant programs:
1. COPS Technology Program.--The conference agreement
includes $140,000,000 to be used for continued development of
technologies and automated systems to assist State and local
law enforcement agencies in investigating, responding to and
preventing crime. In particular, it supports the sharing of
criminal information and intelligence between State and local
law enforcement to address multi-jurisdictional crimes.
Within the amounts made available under this program, the
conference agreement includes the expectation that the COPS
office will award grants for the following technology
proposals:
$3,000,000 for a grant for the Law Enforcement On-Line
Program (LEO). The conference agreement directs the
Department of Justice to submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations by February 1, 2001, on the future of the LEO
system. The report shall present the Department's vision for
LEO, interoperability of LEO with other FBI and Departmental
systems, and the relationship of LEO to the Global Justice
Information Network. The report should also include funding
requirements and a project time line for achieving the
Department's vision and address whether management of LEO
should remain with the FBI, or be transferred to JMD;
$500,000 for a grant to Delaware County, IN, for mobile
data terminals for law enforcement vehicles;
$250,000 for a grant to Clackamas County, OR, for police
communications equipment;
$1,000,000 for a grant to Jackson, MS, for law enforcement
technologies and equipment;
$5,000,000 for a grant to the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children to continue the program created in
fiscal year 2000 that provides targeted technology to police
departments for the specific purpose of child victimization
prevention and response. The technology available to help law
enforcement find missing children is not at the level it
needs to be. Most police departments across the United States
do not have personal computers, modems, and scanners. The
departments that do rarely have them in areas focusing on
crimes against children;
Up to $3,000,000 for the acquisition or lease and
installation of dashboard mounted cameras for State and local
law enforcement on patrol. One camera may be used in each
vehicle which is used primarily for patrols. These cameras
are only to be used by State and local law enforcement on
patrol;
$800,000 for a grant to the National Center for Victims of
Crime--INFOLINK;
$3,000,000 for a grant to allow the Utah Olympic Public
Safety Command to implement the public safety master plan for
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games;
$300,000 for a grant to the Kansas City Community Security
Initiative to continue developing community policing models
in Kansas City neighborhoods;
$150,000 for a grant to establish a Computer Crime Unit
within the Montana Board of Crime Control;
$1,500,000 for a grant to the New Hampshire Department of
Safety to support Operation Streetsweeper;
$400,000 for a grant to the Western Missouri Public Safety
Training Institute for classroom and training equipment to
facilitate the training of public safety officers;
$3,500,000 for a grant to continue the Consolidated
Advanced Technologies for Law Enforcement Program at the
University of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Department
of Safety, in cooperation with the National Resource Center
and the National Institute of Justice;
$400,000 for a grant to Mountain Village, CO, for public
safety information management systems related to law
enforcement;
$500,000 for a grant to Washington State for an electronic
jail booking and reporting system;
$850,000 for a grant to the South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division for a high technology crime investigative unit;
$500,000 for a grant to the National Center for Rural Law
Enforcement in Little Rock, AR, to continue providing
management education, research, forensics, computer, and
technical assistance and training to rural law enforcement
agencies, tribal police, and railroad police throughout the
Nation;
$130,000 for a grant to Jackson County, MS, for public
safety and automated system technologies related to law
enforcement;
$750,000 for grants to the Bennington, Brattleboro,
Newport, Montpelier, and Winooski, VT, for police technology
systems and equipment;
$900,000 for a grant to Billings, MT, for patrol car mobile
data terminals;
$100,000 for a grant to the Inglewood, CA, police
department for technology systems;
$600,000 for a grant for telecommunications upgrades in
rural areas of Montana to improve law enforcement response
times;
$750,000 for a grant to the Macon, GA, Police Department
for technology equipment and software;
$700,000 for a grant for a voice trunking system to assist
law enforcement in eastern North Carolina;
$1,000,000 for a grant to the North Star Borough for
centralized and computer aided dispatch equipment and a study
of needs;
$60,000 for a grant to Monroe County, MI, for a data
transmission mechanism for squad cars;
$600,000 for a grant to the State Police of Virginia for
computers and related equipment;
$5,000,000 for a grant for the Utah Communications Agency
Network (UCAN) for enhancements and upgrades of security and
communications infrastructure to assist with the law
enforcement needs arising from the 2002 Winter Olympics;
$250,000 for a grant to Lane County, OR, for an area
information records system;
$550,000 for a grant to the Clearwater Economic Development
Association to provide funding to sheriffs' offices in
Clearwater, Idaho, Lemhi, Lewis and Nez Perce counties, ID,
to buy radio communications equipment;
$200,000 for a grant to the Pawtucket, RI, Police
Department for patrol car mobile data terminals;
$150,000 for a grant to Bolivar County, MS, for public
safety equipment and automated system technologies to improve
county law enforcement;
$500,000 for a grant to the Maine State Police to upgrade
their police radio system;
$350,000 for a grant to Huntingdon County, PA, for rural
law enforcement technology needs;
$2,200,000 for a grant to the Alaska Department of Public
Safety for technology, policing, and enforcement initiatives;
$2,500,000 for a grant to the Virginia Department of State
Police for law enforcement technologies;
$200,000 for a grant to the Easley, SC, Police Department
for policing equipment upgrades and computer enhancements;
$110,000 for a grant to the Scotts Bluff County, NE,
consolidated communications center to improve law enforcement
response times;
$250,000 for a grant to the Vermont State Police for
computer and radio system upgrades and integration;
$3,000,000 for a grant for the Southeastern Law Enforcement
Technology Center's Coastal Plain Police Communications
initiative for regional law enforcement communications
equipment;
$1,300,000 for a grant to the Alaska Department of Public
Safety for the law enforcement photo network to provide
statewide access to the Alaska booking, driver, and ID
photographic information throughout the State;
$100,000 for a grant to the Lawrence, MA, Police Department
for a police identification management system;
$300,000 for a grant to Grand Rapids, MI, for computer
equipment for police officer vehicles;
$3,000,000 for a grant to the Milwaukee, WI, police
department for communications infrastructure equipment;
$500,000 for a grant to Nye County, NV, for computer
upgrades and other technologies;
$750,000 for a grant to the Vermont Department of Public
Safety for mobile communications technology upgrades for law
enforcement;
$1,650,000 for a grant to the South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division for emergency response technology
equipment, including datamasters;
$100,000 for a grant to Deschutes County, OR, for mobile
data and radio communications upgrades;
$750,000 for a grant to the City of Paducah and McCracken
County, KY, for a Public Safety Mobile Data System to assist
law enforcement;
$400,000 for a grant to the Arkansas Crime Information
Center to address software and hardware requirements;
$500,000 for a grant to the City of Seattle and King
County, WA, for technology upgrades and to assist with inter-
jurisdictional investigations;
$1,800,000 for a grant to the State of Alaska for the
training of Village Public Safety Officers and the purchase
of emergency response equipment;
$500,000 for a grant to Madison, WI, for communications
upgrades needed to address police radio transmitting capacity
and inter-agency communications;
$150,000 for a grant to the Yellowstone County, MT,
Sheriff's office for training technologies upgrades;
[[Page 24651]]
$1,500,000 for a grant to Baltimore, MD, for police
training programs and equipment;
$2,000,000 for a grant to Clark County, NV, to upgrade
mobile and in-vehicle computers;
$1,400,000 for a grant to the Virginia State Police's
Bureau of Criminal Intelligence Division for technical
equipment;
$500,000 for a grant to the Johnson County, KS, Sheriff's
Department for a countywide public safety radio network;
$400,000 for a grant to the Montgomery, AL, Police
Department for an integrated communications system;
$150,000 for a grant to the Bozeman, MT, police department
for high risk activity training equipment;
$100,000 for a grant to St. Clair County, MI, to assist
with law enforcement data needs;
$600,000 for a grant to the Alabama Department of Public
Safety for technology and automated systems to assist law
enforcement;
$3,000,000 for a grant for the continuation of the
Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System, which
will provide for the purchase and deployment of the
technology network between all State and local law
enforcement agencies in the four Southwest Border States;
$200,000 for a grant to Hall County, NE, for mobile data
computers for law enforcement;
$100,000 for a grant to Burrillville, RI, for a
communications system to assist law enforcement;
$200,000 for a grant to Irvington, NJ, for police
technology needs;
$3,000,000 for a grant for videoteleconferencing equipment
necessary to assist State and local law enforcement in
contacting the Immigration and Naturalization Service to
allow them to confirm the identification and status of
illegal and criminal aliens in their custody;
$2,000,000 for a grant to Ventura County, CA, for an
integrated justice information system;
$3,000,000 for a grant for the Southwest Alabama Justice
Integration Project;
$5,000,000 for a grant for the Ohio WEBCHECK system;
$1,750,000 for a grant to the Missouri State Highway Patrol
for an integration technology program;
$1,750,000 for a grant to the California Highway Patrol for
a communications system;
$3,000,000 for a grant for SmartCOP in Alabama;
$3,000,000 for a grant for Project Hoosier SAFE-T;
$2,920,000 for a grant for the Access to Court Electronic
Data for Criminal Justice Agencies project;
$600,000 for a grant to modernize and update law
enforcement technologies and equipment in East Baton Rouge
Parish, Livingston Parish and Ascension Parish, LA;
$1,000,000 for a grant to the Riverside, CA, police
department for mobile data terminals;
$1,000,000 for a grant to Orange County, CA, for a
seamless, integrated communications technology system;
$260,000 for a grant to Shively, KY, for police department
communications improvements;
$1,500,000 for a grant for the Citrus Heights, CA, police
force for computer networking and radios;
$250,000 for a grant for the Suffolk County, NY, Police
Department Technology Crimes Initiative;
$750,000 for a grant for Riviera Beach, FL, for a police
mobile radio system;
$750,000 for a grant for Clearwater, FL, for laptop
computers and printers for police vehicles and network
operations;
$750,000 for a grant for the cities of Arcadia, and Sierra
Madre, CA, to improve crime technology and communications
between the cities;
$600,000 for a grant for a computer-aided dispatch and
records management system for the Bells Garden, CA, police
department;
$3,000,000 for a grant for the Chattanooga, TN, Police
Department to improve information sharing;
$3,000,000 for a grant for the purchase and installation of
mobile data computers for the Huntsville, AL, police
department;
$83,000 for a grant for the Long County, GA, police
department for a communications system;
$3,500,000 for a grant for Pinellas County, FL, law
enforcement agencies to demonstrate with the Florida
Department of Motor Vehicles how facial recognition
technology may be used by police;
$1,300,000 for a grant for vehicle-mounted cameras and
equipment for the Jefferson County, KY, police department;
$3,000,000 for a grant for the Lexington, KY, police
department for communications equipment to improve officer
safety and effectiveness;
$350,000 for a grant for the Daviess County, KY, sheriff's
department for a wireless mobile information system;
$250,000 for a grant for the City of Falls Church, VA,
police department for a computer-aided dispatch and records
management system;
$3,000,000 for a grant for Yuma, AZ, for telecommunications
and technology infrastructure for law enforcement officers;
$152,000 for a grant for Mexico Beach, FL, to upgrade its
dispatch communications service;
$1,500,000 for a grant for an integrated public safety
records management and document imaging system for the
Wichita Police Department (KS);
$500,000 for a grant for the East Valley Regional Community
Analysis Center for a data warehousing project;
$7,500,000 for a grant for a regional law enforcement
technology program in Kentucky;
$1,235,000 for a grant for the Virgin Islands for
technology equipment and upgrades;
$1,500,000 for a grant for a justice tracking information
system (JUSTIS) for San Francisco, CA;
$230,000 for a grant for Glendale, CA, for police training
equipment and technologies;
$1,190,000 for a grant for Pasadena, CA, for a computerized
geographic information system;
$152,000 for a grant for the New Jersey State Police's
High-tech Crime Unit for technology equipment;
$50,000 for a grant for the Tuckahoe, NY, police department
for technology upgrades;
$1,000,000 for a grant for the Greater Atlanta Data Center;
$300,000 for a grant for the Berkshire County Regional
Strategic Response Team in Pittsfield, MA;
$500,000 for a grant for mobile data terminals for
Louisville, KY, to improve information retrieval on-scene and
greatly reduce time used to complete paperwork off-scene;
$750,000 for a grant for the Louisiana State Police for
communications and computer system upgrades for the Public
Safety Emergency Services Training Center;
$50,000 for a grant for the Bound Brook, NJ, police
department for law enforcement technologies;
$500,000 for a grant for the Tampa, FL, police department
for in-vehicle video cameras;
$750,000 for a grant for the North Carolina State Highway
Patrol for mobile data terminals;
$1,000,000 for the Center for Criminal Justice Technology;
$500,000 for a grant for the San Joaquin County, CA,
sheriff's office for technology enhancements; and
$1,000,000 for a grant for Minnesota for a radio system to
improve law enforcement communications in rural Minnesota.
2. COPS Methamphetamine/Drug ``Hot Spots'' Program.--The
conference Agreement provides $48,500,000 for State and local
law enforcement programs to combat methamphetamine
production, distribution, and use, and to reimburse the Drug
Enforcement Administration for assistance to State and local
law enforcement for proper removal and disposal of hazardous
materials at clandestine methamphetamine labs. The monies may
also be used for policing initiatives in ``hot spots'' of
drug market activity. The House bill proposed $45,675,000 and
the Senate-reported amendment proposed $41,700,000 for this
purpose.
Within the amount provided, the conference agreement
includes $20,000,000 to be reimbursed to the Drug Enforcement
Administration as described above. The conference agreement
expects the COPS office to award grants for the following
programs:
$2,000,000 to the Washington State Methamphetamine
Initiative for a comprehensive program to address
methamphetamine enforcement, treatment, and cleanup efforts;
$2,500,000 to the Midwest (Missouri) Methamphetamine
Initiative to train and provide related equipment to State
and local law enforcement officers on the proper recognition,
collection, removal, and destruction of methamphetamine;
$2,000,000 to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation to combat
methamphetamine and to train officers in those types of
investigations;
$750,000 to the Indiana State Police for a methamphetamine
program to address training, equipment, and removal
requirements;
$250,000 to the State Police of Virginia for an intensified
methamphetamine enforcement program;
$800,000 to Southern Utah law enforcement agencies to be
used to purchase remote methamphetamine detection
laboratories to identify infrastructure decay caused by the
disposal of hazardous and toxic chemicals;
$1,000,000 for the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics to
combat methamphetamine and to train officers on the proper
recognition, collection, removal, and destruction of
methamphetamine;
$600,000 for the South Dakota Division of Alcohol and Drug
Abuse to expand its Community Mobilization Project to include
a methamphetamine prevention project;
$500,000 to the State of Illinois to combat methamphetamine
and to train officers in those type of investigations;
$800,000 to the State of Idaho to train State and local law
enforcement officers in the proper recognition, collection,
removal, and destruction of methamphetamine;
$1,000,000 for the Iowa Methamphetamine Clandestine Lab
Task Force;
$1,500,000 for the Arkansas Methamphetamine Law Enforcement
Initiative, of which, $150,000 is for the Arkansas State
Crime Lab to hire three additional chemists and $1,350,000 is
for the Arkansas State Police for training, enforcement, and
cleanup efforts;
$350,000 to the Nebraska Clan Lab Team for the Nebraska
Methamphetamine Fighting Initiative;
$1,000,000 for the Western Wisconsin Methamphetamine Law
Enforcement Initiative;
$1,000,000 for personnel, equipment, and training for
Arizona law enforcement to combat methamphetamine;
[[Page 24652]]
$250,000 for the Nye County, NV, Methamphetamine
Initiative;
$750,000 to the Alabama Department of Public Safety to
combat methamphetamine production and distribution;
$250,000 for the Hawaii Department of Public Safety,
Narcotics Enforcement Division to address methamphetamine
diversion, production, distribution, and enforcement efforts;
$400,000 for the Vermont State Multi-Jurisdictional Drug
Task Force;
$2,200,000 for the Tri-State Methamphetamine Training
Program (IA/SD/NE) to train officers from rural areas on
methamphetamine interdiction, covert operations, intelligence
gathering, locating clandestine laboratories, case
development, and prosecution;
$1,000,000 to form a Western Kentucky Methamphetamine
training program and provide equipment and personnel;
$1,000,000 for the Eastern Appalachian Taskforce on
Methamphetamine Eradication in Tennessee, including $100,000
to establish videoconferencing with the Hamilton County
District Attorney's Office;
$250,000 for the Polk County, FL, sheriff's office to
support additional law enforcement officers, intelligence
gathering and forensic capabilities, training and community
outreach programs for an expanded methamphetamine program;
$750,000 for Central Kentucky to assist local police and
sheriffs' departments with costs associated with combating
the production and distribution of methamphetamine;
$1,500,000 for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
for costs associated with combating the production and
distribution of methamphetamine; and
$300,000 for the Ascension Parish, LA, sheriff's office to
support officer training and outreach programs.
The conference agreement expects the COPS office to review
requests from the California Bureau of Narcotics
Enforcement's Methamphetamine Strategy and Merced County, CA,
and provide grants, if warranted.
3. COPS Safe Schools Initiative (SSI)/School Prevention
Initiatives.--The conference agreement includes $15,000,000
to provide resources for programs aimed at preventing
violence in public schools, and to support the assignment of
officers to work in collaboration with schools and community-
based organizations to address crime and disorder problems,
gangs, and drug activities, as proposed in the House bill and
the Senate-reported amendment. Within the overall amounts
recommended for this program, the conference agreement
includes the expectation that the COPS office will examine
each of the following proposals, provide grants if warranted,
and submit a report to the Committees on its intentions for
each proposal:
$3,000,000 for training by the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children for law enforcement officers selected
to be part of the Safe Schools Initiative;
$541,000 for the Milwaukee schools' Summer Stars program;
$250,000 for the Sioux Falls, SD, school district to expand
an alternative educational support program for at-risk youth;
$250,000 for the Safe Schools program at the University of
Montana;
$500,000 for the School Security and Technology Center in
New Mexico;
$375,000 for the Kenosha County, WI, Sheriff's Department
to address school resource officer needs;
$350,000 for Berkeley, CA, for an intercom and surveillance
safety system;
$250,000 for the King County, WA, school resource officer
program;
$750,000 to the University of Louisville Center for the
Study and Prevention of Violence in Urban Schools;
$350,000 for Bennington, VT, for a teen delinquency
prevention project;
$1,500,000 for the Youth Advocacy Program;
$350,000 for the Alaska Community in Schools Mentoring
program;
$750,000 for Compton, CA, for the Youth Center and After
School Initiative;
$2,000,000 for the National Center for Rural Law
Enforcement for the school violence research center;
$375,000 for the Waukesha, WI, Police Department to address
school resource officer requirements;
$150,000 for the Nevada Foundation for Youth Development;
$495,000 for the Home Run Program;
$500,000 for the Safer School Initiative in Maricopa
County, AZ;
$1,300,000 to setup the Aggressors, Victims and Bystanders
Demonstration Project for Palm Beach County, FL, middle
schools;
$120,000 for the Copiague School District School Safety
Program; and
$80,000 for the Lindenhurst School Violence Program.
4. COPS Bullet-Proof Vests Initiative.--The conference
agreement includes $25,500,000 to provide State and local law
enforcement officers with bullet-proof vests. The House bill
provided $25,000,000 for this program and the Senate-reported
amendment provided $26,000,000.
5. Police Corps.--The conference agreement includes
$29,500,000 for the Police Corps as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment instead of the $15,000,000 as proposed in
the House bill.
6. Crime Identification Technology Act Program [CITA].--As
included in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, the conference agreement provides $130,000,000 for
the CITA program, to be used and distributed pursuant to the
Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998, Public Law 105-
251. Under that Act, eligible uses of the funds are (1)
upgrading criminal history and criminal justice record
systems; (2) improvement of criminal justice identification,
including fingerprint-based systems; (3) promoting
compatibility and integration of national, State, and local
systems for criminal justice purposes, firearms eligibility
determinations, identification of sexual offenders,
identification of domestic violence offenders, and background
checks for other authorized purposes; (4) capture of
information for statistical and research purposes; (5)
developing multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency communications
systems; and (6) improvement of capabilities in forensic
sciences, including DNA.
Jennifer's Law (P.L. 106-177) authorizes funds for States
to apply for competitive grants to cover the costs associated
with entering complete files on unidentified victims into the
FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC). This law
provides incentives for States to report to the NCIC
information on unidentified, deceased persons and will give
law enforcement officials the opportunity to identify missing
children who are reported as ``unidentified''. The conference
agreement notes that funding provided under CITA is
authorized to fund these costs and encourages States to use
CITA funds for this purpose.
Within the amounts provided, the Office of Justice Programs
is directed to provide grants to the following:
$500,000 for Hamilton County, OH, for a juvenile case
management system and integrated automated fingerprint
information system;
$150,000 for Kalamazoo County, MI, to integrate its
criminal justice system data on-line;
$100,000 for Ogden, UT, for public safety and automated
system technologies;
$2,500,000 for the Missouri State Court Administrator for
the Juvenile Justice Information System to enhance
communication and collaboration between juvenile courts, law
enforcement, schools, and other agencies;
$1,250,000 for the Alaska Department of Public Safety for
an information network;
$150,000 for Logan County, OH, to support a regional
planning criminal information infrastructure system;
$4,000,000 for the State Police of NH, for a VHF trunked
digital radio system;
$4,700,000 for the State of Minnesota for a criminal
justice integrated information system, of which $700,000
shall be allocated to Hennepin County;
$2,000,000 to automate the criminal records management
system in San Diego, CA;
$1,500,000 to upgrade the Indianapolis Automated
Fingerprint Identification System; and
$1,500,000 for an information technology project in Wayne
County, MI, to improve communications and information sharing
between local, State and Federal law enforcement.
Safe Schools Technology.--Within the amounts available for
crime identification technology, the conference agreement
includes $17,500,000 for Safe Schools technology to continue
funding NIJ's development of new, more effective safety
technologies such as less obtrusive weapons detection and
surveillance equipment and information systems that provide
communities quick access to information they need to identify
potentially violent youth. The conference agreement adopts by
reference the Senate report language regarding a competitive
grant to a university based technology center.
Upgrade Criminal History Records (Brady Act).--Within the
amounts available for crime identification technology, the
conference agreement provides $35,000,000 for States to
upgrade criminal history records so that these records can
interface with other databases holding information on other
categories of individuals who are prohibited from purchasing
firearms under Federal or State statute. Additionally, the
national sexual offender registry (NSOR) component of the
Criminal History Records Upgrade Program has two principal
objectives. The registry assists States in developing
complete and accurate in-State registries. It will also
assist States in sharing their registry information with the
FBI system which identifies those offenders for whom special
law enforcement interest has been noted.
DNA Backlog Grants/Crime Laboratory Improvement Program
(CLIP).--Within the amounts available for crime
identification technology, the conference agreement includes
$30,000,000 for grants to reduce DNA backlogs and for the
Crime Laboratory Improvement Program (CLIP). The CLIP/DNA
Program supports State and local government crime
laboratories to develop or improve the capability to analyze
DNA in a forensic laboratory, as well as other general
forensic science capabilities. Within the amounts provided
under CITA, it is expected that the Office of Justice
Programs will provide grants to the following programs:
[[Page 24653]]
$400,000 to the Southeast Missouri Crime Laboratory; $450,000
to the Rhode Island State Crime Laboratory; $650,000 to the
Georgia State Crime Laboratory; $950,000 to the Iowa Forensic
Science Improvement Initiative; $2,500,000 to the South
Carolina Law Enforcement Division's forensic laboratory;
$2,000,000 to the Marshall University Forensic Science
program; $4,000,000 to the West Virginia University Forensic
Identification Program; $500,000 to the Vermont Forensic
Laboratory; $2,500,000 to the National Center for Forensic
Science at the University of Central Florida; $500,000 to the
National Academy for Forensic Computing and Investigation in
Charlotte, NC; $500,000 to Ohio forensic science laboratory
improvements; $150,000 to the Kansas Bureau of Investigations
for a new latent fingerprint examination instrument; $650,000
to the Bellevue, WA, Police Department's Forensic Services
Unit; $700,000 to the Arizona Department of Public Safety
Southern Regional Crime Laboratory for forensic equipment;
and $2,600,000 to the National Forensic Science Technology
Center.
The conference agreement encourages the CLIP/DNA program to
support within existing funds the Mississippi Crime Lab in
improving its capacity to analyze and process forensic, DNA
and toxicology evidence and in upgrading its technology.
The conference agreement adopts the Senate report language
directing OJP to conduct a study of the funding requirements
for the operation of forensic science laboratories given the
caseload growth and backlog.
7. Community Prosecutors.--The conference agreement
includes $100,000,000 for the Community Prosecutors program.
The House bill and the Senate-reported amendment did not
include funding for this program. Of the funds provided,
$25,000,000 is for continuation of the current community
prosecutors program and $75,000,000 is for community
prosecutors in high gun violence areas. The $75,000,000 is to
be used exclusively for community prosecutors to prosecute
cases involving violent crimes committed with guns, and
violations of gun statutes in cases involving drug
trafficking and gang-related crime in high gun violence
areas. The Department of Justice is directed to submit a
report to the Committees on Appropriations by December 15,
2000, outlining how the $75,000,000 for community prosecutors
in high gun violence areas will be spent. The report shall
include but not be limited to the following information: (1)
a definition of a high gun violence area; (2) the amount of
funding per prosecutor that will be provided; and (3) an
explanation of how local communities will be able to continue
to employ the prosecutors that are hired after the grant has
expired.
8. Offender Reentry.--In recognition of the public safety
issues generated by the increasing number of offenders who
have served their sentences and are returning from jails and
prisons to our communities, the conference agreement includes
$30,000,000 for the law enforcement costs related to
establishing offender reentry programs. The House bill did
not include funding for this program and the Senate-reported
amendment included $7,000,000 for this program within State
Prison Grants.
Offender reentry programs establish partnerships among
institutional corrections, community corrections, social
services programs, community policing and community leaders
to prepare for more successful returns of inmates to their
home neighborhoods. The $30,000,000 provided is intended to
fund law enforcement participation and coordination of
offender reentry programs. These funds are not provided to
teach job training skills or provide alcohol or drug abuse
treatment. The Department of Justice is directed to submit an
implementation plan to the Committees on Appropriations by
December 15, 2000, outlining how the funds will be spent. The
report shall include the following: (1) a description of the
law enforcement costs that will be funded; (2) an explanation
of how the non-law enforcement costs such as job training,
education, and drug treatment will be funded; (3) an
explanation of how this program is being coordinated with the
Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services; and (4)
an explanation of how local communities will be able to fund
the operational costs of this program after their grants
expire.
9. Police Integrity Program.--The conference agreement
provides $17,000,000 for police integrity training to provide
training and technical assistance grants to develop and
implement new policing methods and strategies. Neither the
House bill nor the Senate-reported amendment included funding
for this initiative.
JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS
The conference agreement includes $298,597,000 for Juvenile
Justice programs, instead of $287,097,000 as proposed in the
House bill and $279,697,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The conference agreement includes the
understanding that changes to Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Programs are being considered in the
reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act
of 1974. However, absent completion of this reauthorization
process, the conference agreement provides funding consistent
with the current Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act. The conference agreement includes language that provides
that funding for these programs shall be subject to the
provisions of any subsequent authorization legislation that
is enacted.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.--Of the total
amount provided, $279,097,000 is for grants and
administrative expenses for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention programs including:
1. $6,847,000 for the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (Part A).
2. $89,000,000 for Formula Grants for assistance to State
and local programs (Part B).
3. $50,250,000 for Discretionary Grants for National
Programs and Special Emphasis Programs (Part C). Within the
amount provided for Part C discretionary grants, OJJDP is
directed to review the following proposals, provide a grant
if warranted, and submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and the Senate on its intentions
regarding:
$3,000,000 for Parents Anonymous, Inc., to develop
partnerships with local communities to build and support
strong, safe families and to help break the cycle of abuse
and delinquency. The conference agreement directs Parents
Anonymous to open up an active dialog with those
organizations no longer associated with the program. With a
concerted effort by all parties, problematic issues can be
resolved which will ultimately benefit the cause of child
abuse prevention;
$1,000,000 to continue the Achievable Dream after-school
program for at-risk youth;
$3,000,000 to continue funding for the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Courts which provides continuing legal
education for family and juvenile law;
$1,900,000 for continued support of law-related education;
$1,500,000 for continuation of the Center for Research on
Crimes Against Children which focuses on improving the
handling of child crime victims by the justice system;
$1,500,000 for equipment and programming costs at the Brown
County, SD, Juvenile Detention Center;
$750,000 for juvenile drug treatment services in Cook
County, IL;
$250,000 to the Low Country Children's Center;
$1,500,000 to expand the Milwaukee Safe and Sound Program
to other Milwaukee neighborhoods;
$150,000 to the Mel Blount Youth Home;
$300,000 to the New Mexico PAL program;
$250,000 to the juvenile assessment center in Billings, MT,
for child and family intervention programs;
$150,000 to Sioux Falls, SD, Turning Point locations,
including the Bowden Youth Center;
$300,000 to the New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service 4-
H Youth Development Program;
$1,000,000 for Project Escape;
$400,000 to the Institute for Character Development, Civic
Responsibility, and Leadership at Neumann College;
$750,000 to Utah State University's Youth and Families with
a Promise program;
$120,000 to the South Dakota Unified Judicial System to
continue the Intensive Juvenile Probation program;
$250,000 to the Hawaii Navigator Project;
$500,000 to the North Eastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement
Council;
$150,000 to the Vermont Coalition of Teen Centers;
$250,000 to the Better Way program in Muncie, IN;
$350,000 to drug prevention programs in Shelby County, KY;
$150,000 to the South Dakota Network Against Family
Violence and Sexual Assault;
$100,000 to the Alfred University Coordinating County
Services for Families and Youth program;
$500,000 to the Kansas YouthFriends program;
$500,000 to perform a national demonstration of the
Learning for Life Program which is then to be replicated by
the Gulf Ridge Council and others;
$1,500,000 to the State of Alaska for a child abuse
investigation program;
$1,250,000 to Aberdeen, SD, for a youth enrichment program;
$438,000 to the National Association of State Fire Marshals
for implementing a national juvenile fire-setter intervention
mobilization plan that will facilitate and promote the
establishment of juvenile fire-setter intervention programs
based on existing model programs at the State and local
level;
$3,000,000 for the ``Innovative Partnerships for High Risk
Youth'' demonstration;
$7,500,000 for the Youth ChalleNGe Program;
$300,000 to Prevent Child Abuse America for the programs of
the National Family Support Roundtable;
$2,000,000 to continue the L.A.'s Best youth program;
$500,000 to the Culver City Juvenile Crime Diversion
Initiative;
$275,000 to the Sports Foundation to work with at-risk
youth;
$300,000 to the No Workshops * * * No Jump Shots program to
provide case management, counseling and mandatory workshops
for at-risk youth;
[[Page 24654]]
$1,000,000 to the Greater Heights program to provide at-
risk youth with mentoring, positive activities, networking
and alternatives to incarceration;
$500,000 to Our Next Generation;
$1,000,000 to the Youth Crime Watch of America;
$150,000 to Operation Quality Time;
$1,300,000 to the Suffolk University Center for Juvenile
Justice;
$1,000,000 for Drug Free America;
$750,000 to New Mexico State University to establish an
After School Services Pilot Program for at-risk youth;
$250,000 for the Culinary Education Training for At-Risk
Youth in Miami-Dade, FL;
$1,000,000 to Mount Vernon, NY, to provide after-school
services to at-risk youth;
$500,000 to the Lourdes Health Network in Pasco, WA, for
extension of the school year program for youth and
adolescents at risk of delinquency;
$250,000 to the Ella H. Baker House to support its juvenile
delinquency intervention and prevention programs;
$365,000 to Project Bridge to continue to assist at-risk
youths in Riverside County, CA;
$500,000 to Wichita State University for a juvenile justice
program;
$500,000 to the Wayne County Department of Community
Justice for an at-risk youth program including prevention and
intervention services;
$1,000,000 for the West Farms program to assist at-risk
youth; and
$50,000 for the Maryhurst Youth Center.
The conference agreement recognizes Project CRAFT
(Community Restitution and Apprenticeship-Focused Training)
as a successful model and proven intervention technique in
the rehabilitation and reduced recidivism of accused and
adjudicated juvenile offenders. The OJP is encouraged to work
in cooperation with the Department of Labor to replicate
Project CRAFT in order to offer at-risk and adjudicated youth
pre-apprenticeship training and job placement in the
residential construction trades.
4. $12,000,000 to expand the Youth Gangs (Part D) program
which provides grants to public and private nonprofit
organizations to prevent and reduce the participation of at-
risk youth in the activities of gangs that commit crimes.
5. $10,000,000 for Discretionary Grants for State Challenge
Activities (Part E) to increase the amount of a State's
formula grant by up to 10 percent, if that State agrees to
undertake some or all of the ten challenge activities
designed to improve various aspects of a State's juvenile
justice and delinquency prevention program.
6. $16,000,000 for the Juvenile Mentoring Program (Part G)
to reduce juvenile delinquency, improve academic performance,
and reduce the drop-out rate among at-risk youth by bringing
young people in high crime areas together with law
enforcement officers and other responsible adults who are
willing to serve as long-term mentors. OJJDP is directed to
provide a $3,000,000 grant for the Big Brothers/Big Sisters
of America program.
7. $95,000,000 for the At Risk Children's Program (Title
V). Under Title V juvenile justice programs, the At Risk
Children's Program provides funding to support comprehensive
delinquency prevention plans formulated at the community
level. The program targets truancy and school violence;
gangs, guns, and drugs; and other influences that lead
juveniles to delinquency and criminality.
Safe School Initiative (SSI).--The conference agreement
includes $15,000,000 within Title V grants for the Safe
School initiative as proposed in the Senate report. Within
the amount provided, OJJDP is directed to review the
following proposals, provide grants if warranted, and submit
a report to the Committees on Appropriations on its
intentions regarding:
$3,600,000 to the Hamilton Fish National Institute on
School and Community Violence;
$1,250,000 to the Teens, Crime, and Community Program;
$200,000 to the Decatur Mentoring Project in Decatur, IL;
$250,000 to an Allegheny County, PA, youth development
program;
$1,000,000 to establish and enhance after-school programs
for at-risk youth in Baltimore, MD;
$750,000 to the University of South Alabama for Youth
Violence Prevention Research;
$900,000 to the Stop Truancy Outreach program;
$58,000 to the Southern Kentucky Truancy Diversion program;
$1,000,000 to the ``I Have a Dream'' foundation for at-risk
youth program;
$500,000 to the Family, Career, and Community Leaders of
America (FCCLA), STOP the Violence--Students Taking On
Prevention Project; and
$1,000,000 to the Little Rock School District to create a
safe, secure and healthy school environment.
Tribal Youth Program.--The conference agreement includes
$12,500,000 within the Title V grants for programs to reduce,
control and prevent crime, as proposed in the Senate report.
Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program.--The
conference agreement includes $25,000,000 within the Title V
grants for programs to assist States in enforcing underage
drinking laws, as proposed in the Senate report. Within the
amounts provided for underage drinking, OJP shall make awards
of $700,000 to expand Oregon Partnership programs and
$500,000 to the Sam Houston State University and Mothers
Against Drunk Driving for the National Institute of Victims
Studies.
Drug Prevention Program.--The conference agreement includes
$11,000,000 as proposed in the House bill to develop,
demonstrate and test programs to increase the perception
among children and youth that drug use is risky, harmful, or
unattractive.
Victims of Child Abuse Act.--The conference agreement
includes $8,500,000 for the various programs authorized under
the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCA), as proposed in the
House bill. The following programs are included in the
agreement:
$1,250,000 to Regional Children's Advocacy Centers, as
authorized by section 213 of VOCA;
$5,000,000 to establish local Children's Advocacy Centers,
as authorized by section 214 of VOCA;
$1,500,000 for a continuation grant to the National Center
for Prosecution of Child Abuse for specialized technical
assistance and training programs to improve the prosecution
of child abuse cases, as authorized by section 214a of VOCA;
and
$750,000 for a continuation grant to the National Network
of Child Advocacy Centers for technical assistance and
training, as authorized by section 214a of VOCA.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS BENEFITS
The conference agreement includes $35,624,000, instead of
$33,224,000 as proposed in the House bill and the Senate-
reported amendment. This includes $33,224,000 for the death
benefits program and $2,400,000 for the disability benefits
program. In addition to the $2,400,000 appropriated for
disability benefits, it is estimated there will be $500,000
in available disability carryover balances for a total of
$2,900,000 for disability payments in fiscal year 2001.
In addition, the conferees understand that there is an
estimated $2,300,000 unobligated balance available for the
Education Assistance to Dependents Program in fiscal year
2001. This amount is estimated to be sufficient to cover the
cost of this program, which has recently been expanded to
provide benefits to the children and spouses of Federal,
State and local public safety officers permanently disabled
in the line of duty as long ago as 1978.
General Provisions--Department of Justice
The conference agreement includes the following general
provisions for the Department of Justice:
Section 101.--The conference agreement includes section
101, identical in the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, which makes up to $45,000 of the funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice available for
reception and representation expenses.
Sec. 102.--The conference agreement includes section 102,
modified from language proposed in the House bill and the
Senate-reported amendment, which continues certain
authorities for the Department of Justice contained in the
Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act, fiscal
year 1980, until enactment of subsequent authorization
legislation.
Sec. 103.--The conference agreement includes section 103,
as proposed in the House bill, which prohibits the use of
funds to perform abortions in the Federal Prison System. The
Senate-reported amendment did not include a similar
provision.
Sec. 104.--The conference agreement includes section 104,
as proposed in the House bill, which prohibits the use of
funds to require any person to perform, or facilitate the
performance of, an abortion. The Senate-reported amendment
did not include a similar provision.
Sec. 105.--The conference agreement includes section 105,
as proposed in the House bill, which states that nothing in
the previous section removes the obligation of the Director
of the Bureau of Prisons to provide escort services to female
inmates who seek to obtain abortions outside a Federal
facility. The Senate-reported amendment did not include a
similar provision.
Sec. 106.--The conference agreement includes section 106,
identical in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, which allows the Department of Justice to spend up
to $10,000,000 for rewards for information regarding acts of
terrorism against a United States person or property at
levels not to exceed $2,000,000 per reward.
Sec. 107.--The conference agreement includes section 107,
as proposed in the House bill, which continues the current 5
percent and 10 percent limitations on transfers among
Department of Justice accounts. The Senate-reported amendment
included a minor technical difference in the language.
Sec. 108.--The conference agreement includes section 108,
as proposed in the House bill, which sets forth the grant
authority of the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of
Justice Programs and makes these authorities permanent. The
Senate-reported amendment included such authorities only for
fiscal year 2001.
[[Page 24655]]
Sec. 109.--The conference agreement includes section 109,
as proposed in the House bill, which continues a provision in
the fiscal year 2000 Appropriations Act to allow assistance
and services to be provided to the families of the victims of
Pan Am 103. The Senate-reported amendment did not include a
similar provision.
Sec. 110.--The conference agreement includes a new
provision, numbered as section 110, which modifies section
641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) to reduce the fees charged to au
pairs, camp counselors, and participants in summer work
travel programs for collection of certain information. The
Senate-reported amendment included a provision to repeal
section 641 and section 110 of the IIRIRA, while the House
bill did not address this matter.
Sec. 111.--The conference agreement includes section 111,
modified from language proposed in the House bill, which
relates to the payment of certain compensation from funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice. A similar
provision was included as section 113 of the Senate-reported
amendment.
Sec. 112.--The conference agreement includes section 112,
as proposed in the House bill, which establishes fees for
genealogy services and voluntary premium processing for
Immigration and Naturalization Service activities. The
Senate-reported amendment did not include a similar
provision.
Sec. 114.--The conference agreement includes section 114,
proposed as section 110 in the Senate-reported amendment,
which allows funds to be provided to the FBI from the Crime
Victims Fund to improve services to crime victims. Additional
direction regarding implementation of this provision is
included under the FBI Salaries and Expenses account. In
addition, the conference agreement assumes that funding will
continue to be provided to the U.S. Attorneys to support the
current number of victim witness coordinators in fiscal year
2001, as was provided from the Fund in fiscal year 2000.
Sec. 115.--The conference agreement includes section 115,
proposed as section 112 in the Senate-reported amendment,
which permanently allows funds appropriated to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to be used to place prisoners in
privately operated prisons provided that the Director of BOP
determines such placement is consistent with Federal
classification standards. The House bill did not include a
similar provision.
Sec. 116.--The conference agreement includes section 116,
proposed as section 114 in the Senate-reported amendment,
which makes available up to $1,000,000 for technical
assistance from funds appropriated for part G of title II of
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,
as amended. The House bill did not include a similar
provision.
Sec. 117.--The conference agreement includes section 117,
proposed as section 115 in the Senate-reported amendment,
which makes available funds provided in fiscal year 2000 for
certain activities. The House bill did not include a similar
provision.
Sec. 118.--The conference agreement includes section 118,
proposed as section 116 in the Senate-reported amendment,
which permanently prohibits funds from being provided to any
local jail that runs a ``pay to stay'' program. The House
bill did not include a similar provision.
Sec. 119.--The conference agreement includes a new
provision which allows the Attorney General to enter into
contracts and other agreements for detention and
incarceration space and facilities on any reasonable basis.
The House bill and the Senate-reported amendment included
similar language elsewhere in Title I of this Act.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES
TRADE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT RELATED AGENCIES
Office of the United States Trade Representative
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $29,517,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative (USTR) instead of $29,433,000 as
proposed in the House bill and $29,600,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment. The USTR is directed to provide
the necessary space within its Geneva offices for use by
Department of Commerce Import Administration personnel
working with the USTR on issues related to antidumping and
countervailing duties.
International Trade Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $48,100,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the International Trade Commission
(ITC) instead of $46,995,000 as proposed in the House bill
and $49,100,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
The conference agreement incorporates by reference report
language in both the Senate and House reports.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION
The conference agreement includes $337,444,000 in new
budgetary resources for the operations and administration of
the International Trade Administration (ITA) for fiscal year
2001, of which $3,000,000 is derived from fee collections,
instead of $321,448,000 as proposed by the House bill, and
$318,686,000 as proposed by the Senate-reported amendment.
The conference agreement does not include Senate-reported
amendment language regarding Executive Direction and
Administration funding. ITA is, however, directed to adhere
to the reprogramming procedures set forth in section 605 of
this Act, and to submit a spending plan.
The following table reflects the distribution of funds by
activity included in the conference agreement:
Trade Development...........................................$64,747,000
Market Access and Compliance.................................25,555,000
Import Administration........................................40,645,000
U.S. & F.C.S................................................194,638,000
Executive Direction and Administration.......................11,859,000
Fee Collections.............................................(3,000,000)
________________
Total, ITA..............................................334,444,000
Trade Development (TD).--The conference agreement provides
$64,747,000 for this activity. Of the amounts provided,
$50,992,000 is for the TD base program, $9,750,000 is for the
National Textile Consortium, $3,000,000 is for the Textile/
Clothing Technology Corporation, and $250,000 is for the
requested export database. Existing members of the National
Textile Consortium should receive funding at the fiscal year
2000 level and the remaining $750,000 is available for new
members on a competitive basis. Further, the conference
agreement includes $255,000 for the Access Mexico program and
$500,000 for continuation of the international global
competitiveness initiative as recommended in the House
report.
Market Access and Compliance (MAC).--The conference
agreement includes a total of $25,555,000 for this activity.
Of the amounts provided, $18,755,000 is for the base program,
$500,000 is for the strike force teams initiative as provided
in the current year, and $6,300,000 is for the trade
enforcement and compliance initiative, the full amount
requested in the budget. Senate report language regarding the
Mid-American Regional Council is incorporated by reference.
Import Administration.--The conference agreement provides
$40,645,000 for the Import Administration. Requested program
increases are included as follows: $1,250,000 for overseas
compliance; $2,225,000 for China and Japan compliance; and
$3,000,000 for import surge monitoring enforcement. Funding
for a trade-law technical assistance center and a World Trade
Organization initiative is not included. Senate report
language on ITA and USTR work is included by reference.
U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US & FCS).--The
conference agreement includes $194,638,000 for the programs
of the US & FCS, the same amount provided in the House bill
and $23,923,000 above the Senate-reported amendment. House
report language regarding the Rural Export Initiative, the
Global Diversity Initiative, and base resources is adopted by
reference. Senate report language regarding the US & FCS's
work on the Appalachian-Turkish Trade Project is adopted by
reference.
Executive Direction and Administration.--The conference
agreement includes $11,859,000 in direct appropriations and
$847,000 in prior year carryover, providing total
availability of $12,706,000 for the administrative and policy
functions of the ITA. The conference agreement does not
include Senate-reported amendment language regarding
Executive Direction and Administration funding.
House report language regarding trade missions, buying
power maintenance, and trade show revenues is included by
reference.
Export Administration
OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION
The conference agreement includes $64,854,000 for the
Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) instead of $53,833,000
as proposed in the House bill and $61,037,000 as proposed in
the Senate-reported amendment. The conference agreement
assumes $425,000 will be available from prior year carryover.
Of the amount provided, $31,328,000 is for Export
Administration base, including Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) implementation and $7,250,000 is for CWC inspections;
$25,033,000 is for Export Enforcement, including $500,000 for
computer export verification as in the current year and
$1,000,000 for the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty;
$4,051,000 is for Management and Policy Coordination; and
$4,867,000 is for the Critical Infrastructure Assurance
Office (CIAO). The House report language regarding the final
year of operation for the CIAO is incorporated by reference.
The conference agreement does not include under this
heading, a provision proposed in the House bill regarding the
processing of licenses for the export of satellites to the
People's Republic of China. The conference agreement includes
an identical provision under ``Department of State,
Diplomatic and Consular Programs'', as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment.
[[Page 24656]]
Economic Development Administration
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The conference agreement includes $411,879,000 for Economic
Development Administration (EDA) grant programs instead of
$361,879,000 as proposed in the House bill and $218,000,000
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
Of the amounts provided, $286,700,000 is for Public Works
and Economic Development, $49,629,000 is for Economic
Adjustment Assistance, $31,450,000 is for Defense Conversion,
$24,000,000 is for Planning, $9,100,000 is for Technical
Assistance, including University Centers, $10,500,000 is for
Trade Adjustment Assistance, and $500,000 is for Research.
EDA is expected to allocate the funding as directed in the
House report. The conference agreement does not include set-
aside funding for specific sectors or populations that was
requested in the budget. The authorized, traditional programs
provide support for all communities facing economic hardship.
Within the funding for Economic Adjustment Assistance, EDA is
expected to increase funding for assistance to the timber and
coal industries above fiscal year 2000 levels. In addition,
EDA is expected to provide resources for communities affected
by economic downturns due to United States-Canadian trade-
related issues, New England fisheries impacted by
regulations, and communities impacted by NAFTA, as directed
in the Senate report.
The conference agreement makes funding under this account
available until expended, as proposed in both the House bill
and the Senate-reported amendment.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $28,000,000 for salaries
and expenses of the EDA instead of $26,499,000 as proposed in
the House bill and $31,542,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. This funding will allow EDA to increase
its level of administrative operations to manage increased
program funding levels. The EDA is directed to aggressively
pursue all opportunities for reimbursement, deobligations,
and use of non-appropriated resources to achieve efficient
and effective control of EDA programs.
Minority Business Development Agency
MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
The conference agreement includes $27,314,000 for the
programs of the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA),
as proposed in the House bill, instead of $27,000,000 as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. House report
language regarding the Entrepreneurial Technology
Apprenticeship Program is included by reference.
ECONOMIC AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Economic and Statistical Analysis
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $53,745,000 for salaries
and expenses of the activities funded under the Economic and
Statistical Analysis account, instead of $49,499,000 as
proposed in the House bill and $53,992,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment. Funding is included to begin the
necessary task of updating and improving statistical
measurements of the U.S. economy, international transactions,
and the effects of e-business, as referenced in the Senate
report. House report language regarding the Integrated
Environmental-Economic Accounting initiative is included by
reference.
Bureau of the Census
The conference agreement provides total spending of
$733,633,000 for the Bureau of the Census for fiscal year
2001, instead of a direct appropriation of $670,867,000 as
proposed in the House bill, and a direct appropriation of
$693,610,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $157,227,000 for the
Salaries and Expenses of the Bureau of the Census for fiscal
year 2001, instead of $140,000,000 as proposed in the House
bill, and $158,386,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. The agreement represents a $17,227,000 increase
over the fiscal year 2000 level. The distribution of funding
is as follows:
Current Economic Statistics................................$103,228,000
Current Demographic Statistics...............................50,100,000
Survey Development and Data Surveys...........................3,899,000
__________
Total...................................................157,227,000
For current economic statistics programs, the conference
agreement provides a total of $103,228,000, of which
$11,295,000 is for adjustments to base, and $3,000,000 is for
program enhancements for the following initiatives:
$2,000,000 to begin the measurement of electronic businesses,
and $1,000,000 to support efforts to improve the timeliness,
quality and coverage of export trade statistics. The
conference agreement fully funds base requirements for these
programs to ensure that key reports on manufacturing, general
economic and foreign trade statistics are maintained and
issued on a timely basis. The conference agreement does not
include additional funding requested to begin funding a
specialized Survey of Minority Owned Business Enterprises
under this account, because such action is inconsistent with
the long-standing practice of requiring specialized surveys
to be funded by an affected agency or entity. The conference
agreement adopts the Senate report language requiring a
report on reimbursements to be submitted with the fiscal year
2002 budget request.
The Bureau of the Census is directed to make the following
changes beginning with the data collection on or after
October 1, 2000, to the monthly report entitled
``Preliminary: U.S. Imports for Consumption of Steel
Products'': (1) to delineate all products listed in such
report into the following categories: alloy steel products,
stainless steel products, and carbon steel products; (2) to
add the following specialty steel categories to the report:
alloy steel and silicon electrical steel; and (3) to divide
in the report all steel line pipe products into the following
categories: line pipe products 16 inches or less in diameter,
and line pipe products over 16 inches in diameter.
Concerns have been expressed regarding recent actions taken
by the Bureau of the Census to change the manner in which
data are collected from the Shipper's Export Declaration, and
the burden this may impose on some shippers. The Bureau is
requested to provide a report on this matter to the
Committees on Appropriations no later than December 15, 2000.
It is the Congress' understanding that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) will not be designating or
defining any changes to metropolitan areas during fiscal year
2001. In order to ensure public acceptance of revised
standards for defining metropolitan areas, OMB will continue
to work with the Congress to resolve outstanding issues
before adopting revised standards. With respect to the
titling of Combined Areas that may be defined in 2003, OMB is
urged to adopt a standard as follows: (1) the name of the
largest principal city of the largest Core Based Statistical
Area should appear first in the Combined Area title; and (2)
in accordance with local opinion, up to two additional names
could be included in the Combined Area title, provided that
the additional names are the names of principal cities in the
Combined Area or suitable regional names; and the resulting
title of the Combined Area would be distinct from the title
of any Metropolitan Area, Micropolitan Area, or Metropolitan
Division defined in 2003 or beyond. With respect to titling
of Metropolitan Areas, OMB is urged to continue to work with
the Congress to address local concerns.
periodic censuses and programs
The conference agreement provides a total spending level of
$576,406,000 for periodic censuses and programs, of which
$276,406,000 is provided as a direct appropriation, and
$300,000,000 is from prior year unobligated balances, instead
of a direct appropriation of $530,867,000 as proposed in the
House bill, and a direct appropriation of $535,224,000 as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
Decennial Census Programs.--The conference agreement
includes a total of $390,898,000 for completion of the 2000
decennial census, of which $130,898,000 is provided as a
direct appropriation, and $260,000,000 is derived from prior
year carryover, instead of a direct appropriation of
$392,898,000 as proposed in the House bill, and a direct
appropriation of $389,716,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The following represents the distribution
of total funds provided for the 2000 Census in fiscal year
2001:
Program Development and Management..........................$24,055,000
Data Content and Products....................................55,096,000
Field Data Collection and Support Systems...................122,000,000
Address List Development......................................1,500,000
Automated Data Process and Telecommunications Support.......115,038,000
Testing and Evaluation.......................................55,000,000
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Pacific Areas.................5,512,000
Marketing, Communications and Partnerships....................9,197,000
Census Monitoring Board.......................................3,500,000
________________
Total, Decennial Census.................................390,898,000
The Bureau is directed to continue to provide monthly
reports on the obligation of funds against each framework.
Reallocation of resources among the frameworks listed above
is subject to the requirements of section 605 of this Act, as
is allocation of any additional unobligated balances not
allocated in this conference agreement.
The conference agreement includes language designating the
amounts provided for each decennial framework, modified from
language proposed in the House bill. Should the operational
needs of the decennial census necessitate the transfer of
funds between these frameworks, the Bureau may transfer such
funds as necessary subject to the standard transfer and
reprogramming procedures set forth in section 605 of this
Act. In addition, the conference agreement includes language
designating funding under this account for the expenses of
the Census Monitoring Board as proposed in the House bill.
The Senate bill did not include a similar provision.
Other Periodic Programs.--The conference agreement includes
a total of $185,508,000 for
[[Page 24657]]
other periodic censuses and programs, of which $40,000,000 is
derived from prior year unobligated balances available from
the decennial census, instead of a direct appropriation of
$137,969,000 as proposed in the House bill, and $145,508,000
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. The following
table represents the distribution of funds provided for non-
decennial periodic censuses and related programs:
Economic Statistics Programs................................$45,928,000
Economic Censuses........................................(42,846,000)
Census of Governments.....................................(3,082,000)
Demographic Statistics Programs............................(96,380,000)
Intercensal Demographic Estimates.........................(5,583,000)
Continuous Measurement...................................(21,615,000)
Demographic Survey Sample Redesign........................(4,769,000)
Electronic Information Collection (CASIC).................(6,000,000)
Geographic Support.......................................(35,108,000)
Data Processing Systems..................................(23,305,000)
Suitland Federal Center......................................43,200,000
________________
Total...................................................185,508,000
The Secretary of Commerce is directed to submit to the
Congress, no later than September 30, 2001, a written report
on any methodological, logistical, and other issues
associated with the inclusion in future decennial censuses of
American citizens and their dependents living abroad, for
apportionment, redistricting, and other purposes for which
decennial census results are used. This report shall include
estimates of the number of Americans living abroad in the
following categories: Federal civilian employees, military
personnel, employees of business enterprises, employees of
non-profit entities, and individuals not otherwise described.
Suitland Federal Center.--The conference agreement includes
a total of $43,200,000 for activities related to renovation
of Census Bureau facilities at the Suitland Federal Center,
of which $40,000,000 is provided from prior year unobligated
balances and $3,200,000 is provided from direct
appropriations. This amount represents the Census Bureau's
costs associated with renovation of this facility, as
follows: $3,200,000 for planning and design work, and
$40,000,000 for above-standard costs. The construction and
tenant build-out costs for this facility are to be funded by
the General Services Administration (GSA), not the Census
Bureau, and the conference agreement includes new language
prohibiting Census Bureau funds from being used for these
purposes. Language is also included, as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment, requiring quarterly reports from
the Census Bureau and GSA on this project.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $11,437,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) as provided in the Senate-
reported amendment, instead of $10,975,000 as proposed in the
House bill. The conference agreement includes, by reference,
Senate report language regarding funding for the critical
infrastructure program, and House report language regarding
reimbursements.
public telecommunications facilities, planning and construction
The conference agreement includes $43,500,000 for the
Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and
Construction (PTFP) program, instead of $31,000,000 as
proposed in the House bill and $50,000,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment. NTIA is expected to use this
funding for the existing equipment and facilities replacement
program, and to maintain an appropriate balance between
traditional grants and those to stations converting to
digital broadcasting. NTIA is directed to place emphasis on
distance learning initiatives targeting rural areas, as
described in Senate report.
INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS
The conference agreement includes $45,500,000 for NTIA's
Information Infrastructure Grants program, instead of
$15,500,000 as proposed in both the House bill and the
Senate-reported amendment. Senate report language regarding
the overlap of funding under this heading with funding for
the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, with
respect to law enforcement communication and information
networks is included by reference. The conference agreement
includes language proposed in the Senate-reported amendment
regarding uses of spectrum. The House bill did not include a
provision on this matter. Senate report language regarding
proposals for several grant programs is not included in the
conference agreement. House report language regarding
telecommunications research is included by reference.
Patent and Trademark Office
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement provides a total funding level of
$1,038,732,000 for the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment and requested in
the budget, instead of $904,924,000 as proposed in the House
bill. Of the amount provided in the conference agreement,
$783,843,000 is to be derived from fiscal year 2001
offsetting fee collections, and $254,889,000 is to be derived
from carryover of prior year fee collections. This amount
represents an increase of $167,732,000, or 19 percent, above
the fiscal year 2000 operating level for the PTO. The PTO has
experienced significant growth in recent years due to
increased application filings for patents and trademarks, and
funding is provided to address these increased filings.
The conference agreement includes bill language limiting
the amount of carryover that may be obligated in fiscal year
2001, as proposed in the House bill.
The conference agreement includes House report language
concerning PTO's partnership with the National Inventor's
Hall of Fame and Inventure Place, and Senate report language
concerning the official insignias of Native American Tribes,
and agency budget forecasts.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Technology Administration
UNDER SECRETARY FOR TECHNOLOGY/OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $8,080,000 for the
Technology Administration, instead of $7,945,000 as proposed
in the House bill, and $8,216,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The conference agreement continues
direction as in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 regarding
the use of Technology Administration and Department of
Commerce resources to support foreign policy initiatives and
programs.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES
The conference agreement includes $312,617,000 for the
internal (core) research account of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), instead of $292,056,000 as
proposed in the House bill, and $305,003,000 as proposed in
the Senate-reported amendment.
The conference agreement provides funds for the core
research programs of NIST as follows:
Electronics and Electrical Engineering......................$40,127,000
Manufacturing Engineering....................................19,821,000
Chemical Science and Technology..............................33,360,000
Physics......................................................31,556,000
Material Sciences and Engineering............................54,658,000
Building and Fire Research...................................17,124,000
Computer Science and Applied Mathematics.....................52,551,000
Technology Assistance........................................17,349,000
Baldrige Quality Awards.......................................5,205,000
Research Support.............................................36,599,000
Infrastructure Protection Research Grants.....................5,000,000
________________
Subtotal................................................313,350,000
Deobligations.................................................(733,000)
________________
Total...................................................312,617,000
In addition, the conference agreement includes funding for
the Physics program as referenced in the Senate report. Of
the funding provided for Computer Science and Applied
Mathematics, $3,000,000 is for expert review teams, and
$4,000,000 is for internal critical infrastructure protection
activities. Funding is included for the Building and Fire
Program at $1,192,000 above the budget request, and
$2,000,000 is to continue the disaster research program on
effects of windstorms on protective structures and other
technologies begun in fiscal year 1998. A total of $282,000
is authorized to be transferred to the NIST working capital
fund, as referenced in the House bill instead of $6,200,000
as referenced in the Senate-reported amendment. Language
regarding the placement of NIST personnel overseas is
included as in the House report.
Funding of $5,000,000 is provided for a new program to
award research grants for critical infrastructure protection.
NIST is required to submit an implementation plan for this
new, competitive grant program, prior to obligation of
funding.
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
The conference agreement includes $250,837,000 for the NIST
external research account, instead of $104,836,000 as
proposed in the House bill, and $262,737,000 as proposed in
the Senate-reported amendment.
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.--The
conference agreement includes $105,137,000 for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (MEP), instead of
$104,836,000 as proposed in the House bill, and $109,137,000
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. The conference
agreement includes no funding for new initiatives. Additional
funding is provided for the centers. The conference agreement
incorporates direction in the Senate report that the Northern
Great Plains Initiative e-commerce project should assist
small manufacturers with marketing and business development
purposes in rural areas.
[[Page 24658]]
Advanced Technology Program.--The conference agreement
includes $145,700,000 for the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP), instead of $153,600,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment, and no funding as proposed in the House
bill. The amount of carryover funding available in fiscal
year 2001 is $45,000,000, providing total available funding
of $190,700,000 for fiscal year 2001.
The recommendation provides the following: (1) $84,800,000
for continued funding requirements for awards made in fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000; (2) $60,700,000 for
new awards in fiscal year 2001; and (3) $45,200,000 for
administration, internal NIST lab support and Small Business
Innovation Research requirements.
The conference agreement includes bill language, modified
from the Senate language, designating $60,700,000 for new ATP
awards.
CONSTRUCTION OF RESEARCH FACILITIES
The conference agreement provides $34,879,000 for
construction, renovation and maintenance of NIST facilities,
instead of $26,000,000 as proposed in the House bill, and
$28,879,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
Of the amount provided, $14,000,000 is for grants and
cooperative agreements as referenced in Section 209 of this
Act; and $20,879,000 is for safety, capacity, maintenance,
and repair projects at NIST, including funding to address
electrical service issues at NIST's Boulder campus.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The conference agreement provides a total funding level of
$2,627,500,000 for all programs of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), instead of $2,230,959,000
as proposed in the House bill, and $2,687,070,000 as proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment. Of these amounts, the
conference agreement includes $1,869,170,000 in the
Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account,
$682,899,000 in the Procurement, Acquisition and Construction
(PAC) account, and $75,431,000 in other NOAA accounts.
operations, research, and facilities
(including transfers of funds)
The conference agreement includes $1,869,170,000 for the
Operations, Research, and Facilities account of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration instead of
$1,608,125,000 as proposed in the House bill, and
$1,958,046,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
In addition to the new budget authority provided, the
conference agreement allows a transfer of $68,000,000 from
balances in the account entitled ``Promote and Develop
Fishery Products and Research Related to American
Fisheries'', as proposed in the House bill, instead of
$72,828,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. In
addition, the conference agreement assumes prior year
deobligations totaling $16,650,000, $4,000,000 in offsets
from fee collections, and $3,200,000 to be transferred from
the Coastal Zone Management Fund to the ORF account.
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
in the House bill designating the amounts provided under this
account for the six NOAA lines offices. The Senate-reported
amendment contained no similar provision.
The conference agreement includes language, similar to
language proposed in the House bill and carried since the
1999 Appropriations Act, designating the amount available for
Executive Direction and Administration and prohibiting
augmentation of specified offices through formal or informal
personnel details, transfers, or reimbursements above 42
personnel. The Senate-reported amendment contained no such
provision.
The conference agreement includes language proposed in the
House bill making the use of deobligated balances subject to
standard reprogramming procedures. NOAA is directed that any
use of deobligations above $16,650,000 is subject to the
procedures set forth in section 605 of this Act. In addition,
the conference agreement includes House bill language
limiting administrative charges assessed on assigned
activities, as in the current year. The Senate-reported
amendment included no similar provisions.
The conference agreement does not include language in the
Senate-reported amendment regarding lawsuits. The House bill
did not address this matter.
The conference agreement does not include $34,000,000 in
controversial new fisheries and navigation safety fees that
were proposed in the budget request. House and Senate report
language regarding these fees is incorporated by reference.
The conference agreement does not include a provision, as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment, permitting the
Secretary to have NOAA occupy and operate research facilities
at Lafayette, Louisiana.
The following table reflects the distribution of the funds
provided in this conference agreement.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS, RESEARCH AND FACILITIES, FISCAL YEAR 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Enacted 2001 Request 2001 House 2001 Senate 2001 Conf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
Navigation Services:
Mapping and Charting........................................... 35,298 38,456 32,718 40,256 37,437
Address Survey Backlog......................................... 18,900 18,000 18,900 22,000 20,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................................... 54,198 56,456 51,618 62,256 57,887
Geodesy........................................................ 20,159 20,206 21,159 21,134 22,384
Tide and Current Data.......................................... 12,390 15,089 15,089 12,293 15,089
Acquisition of Data............................................ 15,546 17,246 14,546 18,246 18,246
NOAA Corps strength increase................................... ............... ............... ............... 1,000 1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Navigation Services................................. 102,293 108,997 102,412 114,929 114,606
====================================================================================
Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment:
Ocean Assessment Program....................................... 44,846 41,465 34,348 49,515 49,956
GLERL...................................................... ............... 6,085 ............... 7,000 ...............
Response and Restoration................................... 15,329 20,149 10,991 19,884 11,600
Oceanic and Coastal Research............................... 8,470 8,500 5,410 10,500 9,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Estuarine & Coastal Assessment............... 68,645 76,199 50,749 86,899 71,056
Coastal Ocean Program.......................................... 17,200 18,232 17,087 19,432 18,287
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Ocean Resources Conservation & Assessment....... 85,845 94,431 67,836 106,331 89,343
====================================================================================
Ocean and Coastal Management:
CZM Grants..................................................... 54,700 147,400 54,700 60,000 52,000
Program Administration......................................... 4,500 6,608 4,500 4,500 4,500
Estuarine Research Reserve System.............................. 6,000 12,000 6,000 12,000 9,750
Nonpoint Pollution Control..................................... 2,500 4,500 2,500 ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Coastal Management............................... 67,700 170,508 67,700 76,500 66,250
Marine Sanctuary Program....................................... 23,000 32,000 22,500 23,500 20,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Ocean & Coastal Management.......................... 90,700 202,508 90,200 100,000 86,750
====================================================================================
Total, NOS................................................. 278,838 405,936 260,448 321,260 290,699
====================================================================================
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Information Collection and Analysis:
Resource Information........................................... 107,848 101,988 100,100 117,795 119,945
Antarctic Research......................................... 1,234 1,200 1,200 2,000 1,500
Chesapeake Bay Office...................................... 2,390 1,500 2,390 3,000 2,500
Right Whale Research....................................... ............... 200 ............... ............... ...............
MARFIN..................................................... 2,750 2,750 2,500 3,500 3,500
SEAMAP..................................................... 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,400
Alaskan Groundfish Surveys................................. 900 661 661 900 900
Bering Sea Pollock Research................................ 945 945 945 945 945
West Coast groundfish...................................... 820 780 820 780 820
New England Stock Depletion................................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
[[Page 24659]]
Hawaii Stock Management Plan............................... 500 ............... 500 500 500
Yukon River Chinook Salmon................................. 1,200 700 ............... 1,500 1,500
Atlantic Salmon Research................................... 710 710 710 710 710
Gulf of Maine Groundfish Survey............................ 567 567 567 567 567
Dolphin/Yellowfin Tuna Research............................ 250 250 250 250 250
Pacific Salmon Treaty Program.............................. 17,431 10,587 5,587 10,587 7,456
Red Snapper Monitoring and Research........................ ............... ............... ............... 7,500 4,500
SE Cooperative Research.................................... ............... ............... ............... ............... 2,500
Hawaiian Monk Seals........................................ 750 500 500 800 800
Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan............................. 4,000 1,440 1,440 12,300 12,300
Hawaiian Sea Turtles....................................... 285 248 248 300 300
Bluefish/Striped Bass...................................... 1,000 ............... 1,000 ............... 1,500
Halibut/Sablefish.......................................... 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 146,980 128,426 122,818 167,334 166,593
====================================================================================
Fishery Industry Information:
Fish Statistics................................................ 13,000 18,871 13,000 21,871 17,680
Alaska Groundfish Monitoring................................... 5,500 5,200 5,200 7,100 6,750
PACFIN/Catch Effort Data....................................... 3,000 3,000 4,700 3,700 3,000
AKFIN (Alaska Fishery Information Network...................... 2,500 ............... ............... 3,400 3,000
RECFIN......................................................... 3,700 3,100 3,100 3,700 3,700
GULF FIN Data Collection Effort................................ 3,500 ............... 3,000 ............... 3,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................... 31,200 30,171 29,000 39,771 37,630
====================================================================================
Information Analyses and Dissemination............................. 20,900 21,403 20,400 21,403 21,150
Computer Hardware and Software................................. 3,500 3,500 750 3,500 3,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................... 24,400 24,903 21,150 24,903 24,650
Acquisition of Data................................................ 25,943 25,944 25,943 26,944 26,900
====================================================================================
Total, Information, Collection, and Analyses............... 228,523 209,444 198,911 258,952 255,773
====================================================================================
Conservation and Management Operations:
Fisheries Management Programs.................................. 38,830 37,825 34,680 79,295 62,888
Columbia River Hatcheries.................................. 12,055 15,212 12,055 15,742 14,055
Columbia River Endangered Species.......................... 288 288 288 288 288
Regional Councils.......................................... 13,150 13,100 13,150 15,100 13,150
International Fisheries Commissions........................ 400 400 400 400 400
Management of George's Bank................................ 478 478 478 478 478
Pacific Tuna Management/Pelagic Fisheries.................. 2,300 1,250 1,250 3,000 2,650
Fisheries Habitat Restoration.............................. 2,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
NE Fisheries Management.................................... 6,000 11,900 6,000 3,980 ...............
NE Consortium.............................................. ............... ............... ............... 5,000 5,000
NE Cooperative............................................. ............... 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Norton Sound Fisheries..................................... ............... 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Coral Reefs................................................ ............... 5,000 ............... 3,000 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fisheries Mgmt. Programs..................... 75,501 109,533 90,301 143,283 120,900
====================================================================================
Protected Species Management............................... 6,200 8,988 6,950 11,288 9,038
Dolphin Encirclement....................................... 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300
Driftnet Act Implementation................................ 3,439 3,278 3,278 5,250 3,775
Marine Mammal Protection Act............................... 7,583 7,225 7,225 8,225 8,125
Endangered Species Act Recovery Plan....................... 43,500 55,450 42,800 47,765 55,338
Native Marine Mammals...................................... 950 700 200 1,200 950
Observers/Training......................................... 2,650 4,500 5,700 4,925 6,475
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL............................................... 67,622 83,441 69,453 81,953 87,001
====================================================================================
Habitat Conservation........................................... 9,200 11,079 9,200 11,079 10,140
Enforcement & Surveillance..................................... 17,950 22,354 17,950 22,354 22,354
====================================================================================
Total, Conservation, Management & Operations............... 170,273 226,407 186,904 258,669 240,404
====================================================================================
State and Industry Assistance Programs:
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Grants........................... 2,600 2,590 2,590 2,590 2,590
Anadromous Grants.............................................. 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100
Interstate Fish Commissions.................................... 7,750 4,000 7,750 8,750 8,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................... 12,450 8,690 12,440 13,440 12,690
====================================================================================
Fisheries Development Program:
Product Quality and Safety/Seafood Inspection.................. 9,500 8,328 8,328 8,778 8,328
Hawaiian Fisheries Development................................. 750 ............... ............... 750 750
Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation........................ ............... ............... ............... 300 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................... 10,250 8,328 8,328 9,828 9,078
====================================================================================
Total, State and Industry Programs......................... 22,700 17,018 20,768 23,268 21,768
====================================================================================
TOTAL, NMFS................................................ 421,496 452,870 406,583 540,889 517,945
====================================================================================
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
Climate and Air Quality Research:
Interannual & Seasonal......................................... 16,900 14,986 12,900 14,986 14,943
Climate & Global Change Research............................... 67,000 67,095 63,000 68,895 68,500
GLOBE.......................................................... 3,000 5,000 ............... ............... 3,000
Climate Observations & Services................................ ............... 24,000 ............... 14,000 12,250
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................... 86,900 111,081 75,900 97,861 98,693
====================================================================================
Long-term Climate & Air Quality Research....................... 30,000 30,525 29,409 33,025 33,019
Information Technology/High Performance Computing.............. 12,750 12,750 12,000 12,750 12,750
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................... 42,750 43,275 41,409 45,775 45,769
====================================================================================
Total, Climate and Air Quality Research.................... 129,650 154,356 117,309 143,656 144,462
====================================================================================
Atmospheric Programs:
Weather Research............................................... 37,350 37,075 35,850 38,075 37,500
[[Page 24660]]
STORM.......................................................... 2,000 ............... ............... 1,000 350
Wind Profiler.................................................. 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350 4,350
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................... 43,700 41,425 40,200 43,425 42,200
Solar/Geomagnetic Research..................................... 7,000 6,182 6,000 6,182 6,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Atmospheric Programs.................................... 50,700 47,607 46,200 49,607 48,200
====================================================================================
Ocean and Great Lakes Programs:
Marine Prediction Research..................................... 27,325 22,595 19,725 30,245 32,525
GLERL.......................................................... 6,825 ............... 7,125 ............... 7,000
Sea Grant Program.............................................. 59,250 59,250 61,250 64,750 62,250
National Undersea Research Program............................. 13,800 5,750 ............... 17,000 15,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Ocean and Great Lakes Programs...................... 107,200 87,595 88,100 111,995 117,575
Acquisition of Data............................................ 12,952 12,952 12,952 12,952 12,952
====================================================================================
Total, OAR................................................. 300,502 302,510 264,561 318,210 323,189
====================================================================================
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
Operations and Research:
Local Warnings and Forecasts................................... 480,758 508,936 506,348 505,503 462,180
Susquehanna River Basin flood system........................... 1,125 619 1,250 1,500 1,313
Aviation forecasts............................................. 35,596 35,596 35,596 35,596 35,596
Advanced Hydrological Prediction System........................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
WFO Maintenance................................................ 3,250 5,250 3,250 5,250 4,250
Weather Radio Transmitters..................................... ............... ............... 3,000 ............... 4,308
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................... 480,758 508,936 503,348 505,403 508,647
Central Forecast Guidance...................................... 37,081 38,001 37,081 38,001 37,500
Atmospheric and Hydrological Research.......................... 3,000 3,068 3,000 3,068 3,034
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Operations and Research............................. 520,839 550,005 543,429 546,472 549,181
====================================================================================
Systems Acquisition:
Public Warnings and Forecast Systems:
NEXRAD..................................................... 38,836 38,802 38,802 38,802 38,802
ASOS....................................................... 7,345 7,423 7,345 7,423 7,423
AWIPS/NOAA Port............................................ 32,150 38,642 32,150 38,642 35,396
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Systems Acquisition............................. 78,331 84,867 78,297 84,867 81,621
====================================================================================
Total, NWS............................................. 599,170 634,872 621,726 631,339 630,802
====================================================================================
NAT'L ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICE
Satellite Observing Systems:
Ocean Remote Sensing........................................... 4,000 4,000 ............... 4,000 4,000
Environmental Observing Systems................................ 53,300 53,912 50,800 56,412 53,300
Global Disaster Information Network............................ ............... 5,500 ............... ............... 3,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Satellite Observing Systems......................... 57,300 63,412 50,800 60,412 60,300
====================================================================================
Data and Information Services.................................. 38,700 32,454 40,700 35,754 49,700
Environmental Data Management Systems.......................... 12,335 12,335 12,335 12,335 12,335
Regional Climate Centers....................................... 2,750 ............... 2,750 3,600 2,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, EDMS................................................ 53,785 44,789 55,785 51,689 64,935
====================================================================================
Total, NESDIS.............................................. 111,085 108,201 106,585 112,101 125,235
====================================================================================
PROGRAM SUPPORTS
Administration and Services:
Executive Direction and Administration......................... 19,387 19,902 19,902 19,902 19,902
Systems Acquisition Office..................................... 712 712 700 712 712
NMFS Study..................................................... ............... ............... ............... 750 750
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................... 20,099 20,614 19,900 21,364 21,364
Central Administrative Support................................. 31,850 33,132 31,850 33,132 33,132
Minority Serving Institutions.................................. ............... 17,000 ............... ............... 15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Administration and Services......................... 51,949 53,746 51,750 54,496 69,496
Aircraft Services.............................................. 10,760 11,009 11,000 14,309 11,809
Rent Savings (Transferred to ATB).............................. (4,656) ............... (4,656) ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Program Support..................................... 58,053 64,755 58,094 68,805 81,305
====================================================================================
Fleet Planning and Maintenance..................................... 13,243 9,294 7,000 19,004 11,010
Facilities
NOAA Facilities Maintenance.................................... 1,809 1,941 1,800 1,941 1,870
Environmental Compliance....................................... 2,000 3,899 2,000 3,899 2,000
Suitland....................................................... ............... ............... ............... 14,700 ...............
Columbia River Facilities...................................... 3,365 ............... 3,365 3,465 3,365
NERRS Construction............................................. ............... ............... ............... 3,000 ...............
Boulder Facilities (GSA) Operations............................ 3,850 5,350 3,850 4,000 4,000
NARA Records Mgmt.............................................. ............... 262 ............... 262 ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Facilities.......................................... 11,024 11,452 11,015 31,267 11,235
====================================================================================
Direct Obligations................................................. 1,793,411 1,989,890 1,736,012 2,042,875 1,991,420
====================================================================================
Offset for Fee Collections (Adjustment)........................ (4,000) ............... 4,000 4,000 4,000
Reimbursable Obligations....................................... 195,767 204,400 204,400 204,400 204,400
Offsetting Collections (data sales)............................ 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600
Offsetting Collections (fish fees/IFQ CDQ)..................... 4,000 ............... ............... ............... ...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Reimbursables.................................... 199,367 208,000 212,000 212,000 212,000
====================================================================================
Total, Obligations......................................... 1,992,778 2,197,890 1,948,012 2,254,875 2,203,420
====================================================================================
Financing
Deobligations (Prior year recoveries).......................... (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) (10,000) (16,650)
[[Page 24661]]
Unobligated Balance transferred, net........................... ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Offsetting Collections (data sales)............................ (3,600) (3,600) (3,600) (3,600) (3,600)
Offsetting Collections (fish fees/IFQ CDQ)..................... (4,000) ............... (4,000) ............... (4,000)
Federal Funds.................................................. (134,927) (147,700) (147,700) 147,700) (147,700)
Non-federal Funds.............................................. (60,840) (56,700) (56,700) (56,700) (56,700)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Financing........................................ (239,367) (244,000) (248,000) (218,000) (228,650)
Budget Authority................................................... 1,753,411 1,953,890 1,700,012 2,036,875 1,974,770
====================================================================================
Financing From:
Promote and Develop American Fisheries......................... (68,000) (68,000) (68,000) (66,278) (68,000)
Coastal Zone Management Fund................................... (4,000) (3,200) (4,000) (3,200) (3,200)
Anticipated Offsetting Collections (fish fees)................. ............... (20,000) ............... ............... ...............
Anticipated Offsetting Collections (navigation fees)........... ............... (14,000) ............... ............... ...............
Disaster Relief--Norton Sound.................................. ............... (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) (5,000)
Disaster Relief--NE Fisheries.................................. ............... (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) (15,000)
====================================================================================
Subtotal, ORF.............................................. 1,310,677 1,501,890 1,240,012 1,610,875 1,883,570
====================================================================================
Additional Adjustments:
Domestic Travel................................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... (4,000)
Foreign Travel................................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... (2,400)
General Office Supplies........................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... (5,000)
Non-Maritime/Non-capitalized equipment......................... ............... ............... ............... ............... (3,000)
Subtotal, ORF.............................................. 1,681,411 1,828,690 1,608,012 1,947,397 1,869,170
====================================================================================
Total, ORF................................................. 1,681,411 1,828,690 1,608,012 1,947,397 1,869,170
====================================================================================
PROCUREMENT, ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION
Systems Acquisition:
CAMS........................................................... ............... 15,823 4,500 17,823 19,823
AWIPS.......................................................... 16,000 17,300 16,000 17,300 16,300
ASOS........................................................... 3,855 5,125 3,855 5,125 3,855
NEXRAD......................................................... 8,280 9,580 8,280 9,580 8,280
Computer Facilities Upgrades................................... 11,100 15,085 11,100 15,085 15,085
Polar Spacecraft and Launching................................. 190,979 213,619 206,965 213,639 210,310
Geostationary Spacecraft and Launching......................... 266,615 290,824 290,824 290,824 290,824
Radiosonde Replacement......................................... 7,000 7,000 2,000 7,000 5,000
GFDL Supercomputer............................................. 5,000 7,000 5,000 7,000 4,000
Evansville Dopple Radar........................................ ............... 5,500 5,500 ............... 5,500
NOAA Weather Radio Expansion/Enhancement....................... ............... 6,244 ............... 6,244 ...............
National Data Archive [NEDAAS]................................. ............... 4,000 ............... 4,000 2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Systems Acquisition.............................. 508,829 597,100 554,024 593,620 580,977
====================================================================================
Construction:
WFO Construction............................................... 9,526 9,526 9,136 9,526 9,526
NERRS Construction............................................. 6,750 8,000 6,000 8,000 7,500
Botanical Gardens.............................................. 1,500 ............... ............... ............... 3,500
Alaska Facilities.............................................. 9,750 1,000 ............... 19,000 19,000
National Marine Life Center.................................... ............... ............... ............... 1,000 800
Great Bay NERRS, NH............................................ ............... ............... ............... ............... 5,000
Kasitsna Bay Lab/Kachemak Bay.................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... 5,000
NORC Rehabilitation (Suitland)................................. 3,045 ............... ............... ............... ...............
Marine Sanctuaries............................................. 3,000 3,000 3,000 ............... ...............
Suitland Facility.............................................. 3,000 ............... ............... ............... 15,000
Norman, OK..................................................... ............... 3,000 ............... 3,000 3,000
LaJolla Bluffs, CA............................................. ............... 4,600 ............... 4,600 ...............
Western Region Consolidation................................... ............... 200 ............... 200 ...............
Coastal Service Center Wing (SC)............................... ............... ............... ............... 4,000 ...............
Aquatic Resources.............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... 5,000
Pribilof Island Cleanup (AK)................................... ............... ............... ............... 7,000 6,000
Folly Beach Seabrook Tract (SC)................................ ............... ............... ............... 2,000 2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Construction..................................... 36,571 29,326 18,136 57,326 81,326
====================================================================================
Fleet Replacement.............................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ...............
Fishery Research Vessel Placement.............................. 51,567 8,300 ............... 8,300 8,300
Adventurous Refurbishment.................................. ............... 8,000 ............... 8,000 8,000
Fairweather Refurbishment.................................. ............... ............... ............... ............... 6,800
Naval Surplus vessels for coastal research (YTT)........... ............... ............... ............... ............... 5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Fleet Replacement............................ 51,567 16,300 ............... 16,300 28,100
Deobligations (PAC)........................................ (7,400) (7,504) (8,704) (7,504) (7,504)
====================================================================================
Offset from House floor action.................................
Total, PAC............................................. 589,567 635,222 563,456 659,742 682,899
====================================================================================
Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery...................................... 58,000 160,000 58,000 58,000 74,000
Coastal Impact Assistance Fund................................. ............... 100,000 ............... ............... ...............
Fisheries Assistance Fund...................................... ............... 10,000 ............... ............... ...............
Fisherman's Contingency............................................ 953 951 951 953 952
Foreign Fish Observer Fund......................................... 189 191 189 191 191
Fisheries Finance Program.......................................... 338 6,628 238 338 288
(Individual Fisheries Quota)................................... (100) (100) ............... ............... ...............
====================================================================================
Total, NOAA................................................ 2,330,458 2,741,682 2,230,846 2,666,621 2,627,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following narrative provides additional information
related to certain items included in the preceding table.
national ocean service
The conferees have provided a total of $290,699,000 under
this account for the activities of the National Ocean
Service, instead of $260,448,000 as recommended in the House
bill and $321,26,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment.
Mapping and Charting.--The conference agreement provides
$37,437,000 for NOAA's mapping and charting programs,
reflecting continued commitment to the navigation safety
programs of the NOS and concerns about the ability of the NOS
of continue to meet its mission requirements over the long
term. Within the total funding provided under Mapping and
Charting, the conference agreement includes $2,580,000 for
the joint hydrographic center established in fiscal year
1999, one-time funding of $300,000 for the Seacoast Science
Center, and $1,500,000 for shoreline mapping as requested in
the budget.
[[Page 24662]]
The conference agreement also includes $20,450,000 within
the line item Address Survey Backlog/Contracts exclusively
for contracting with the private sector for data acquisition
needs. This is $2,450,000 above the request and is intended
to increase efforts to address the backlog through contract
support.
Geodesy.--The conference agreement provides $22,384,000 for
geodesy programs, including $19,634,000 for the base program;
not less than $500,000 for the South Carolina Geodetic Survey
as referenced in the Senate report; not less than $1,000,000
for the implementation of the National Height Modernization
(NHM) system in North Carolina; not less than $1,000,000 for
the California Spatial Reference Center; and not less than
$250,000 for the National Geodetic Survey to implement the
NHM study.
Tide and Current Data.--The conference agreement includes
$15,089,000 for this activity, including $12,293,000 for the
base program and $2,796,000 for the continued implementation
of the Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS)
program, as referenced in the House report.
The conference agreement includes $2,000,000 above the
request for data acquisition and for building NOAA corps
officer strength and for additional days at sea.
Ocean Assessment Program.--The conference agreement
includes $49,956,000 for the activity, including the
following: $12,658,000 for the base program; $5,800,000 to
continue the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine
Environmental Technology; $900,000 for the South Florida
ecosystem restoration program; $2,000,000 to support coral
reef studies in the Pacific and Southeast, of which
$1,000,000 is for Hawaiian coral reef monitoring, $500,000 is
for reef monitoring in Florida, and $500,000 is for reef
monitoring in Puerto Rico through the Department of Natural
Resource; $4,425,000 for pfisteria and other harmful algal
bloom research and monitoring, of which $500,000 is for a
pilot project to preemptively address emerging problems prior
to the occurrence of harmful blooms, to be carried out by the
South Carolina Department of Marine Resources: $2,500,000 for
the JASON project; and $2,923,000 for the NOAA Beaufort/
Oxford Laboratory. In addition, the conference agreement
includes $18,750,000 for the Coastal Services Center,
including funds for initiation of a collaborative program in
Hawaii for the U.S. Pacific Basin, consistent with activities
identified in the fiscal year 2000 conference report, and
funding for planning and design for additional space at the
Coastal Services Center.
Office of Response and Restoration.--The conference
agreement includes $11,600,000 for the activity, including;
$2,674,000 for the Estuarine and Coastal Assessment program,
$5,210,000 for the Damage Assessment program, $1,000,000 in
accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and $2,716,000
for a new base program to provide greater flexibility for
program managers to address response and restoration
functions. No funding is provided for coral restoration.
Oceanic and Coastal Research.--The conference agreement
includes $9,500,000 for this activity, which includes
$6,970,000 for base, $1,250,000 for fish forensics and
enforcement, and $1,280,000 for the Marine Environmental
Health Research Laboratory (MEHRL). The conference agreement
includes language as proposed in the Senate report regarding
national overhead costs associated with managing the missions
and operations of the research facilities funded in the
Oceanic and Coastal Research activity and the National Ocean
Service is directed to transfer budget and management
operations for the MEHRL and the Charleston Lab to the
Coastal Services Center.
The conference agreement does not include the proposed
transfer of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
(GLERL) from Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to NOS, as
proposed in the Senate report.
Coastal Ocean Program (COP).--The conference agreement
provides $18,287,000 for the Coastal Ocean Program, of which
$5,287,000 is provided for research related to hypoxia,
pfistereia, and other harmful algal blooms, including the
``dead-zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico, as referenced in the
House report. The managers of COP are directed to follow the
direction included in the Senate report concerning research
on small high-salinity estuaries and the land use-coastal
ecosystem study. The conference agreement also assumes
continued funding at the current level for restoration of the
South Florida ecosystem.
Coastal Zone Management.--The conference agreement includes
$66,250,000 for this activity, of which $52,000,000 is for
grants under sections 306, 306A, and 309 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), and $4,500,000 is for program
administration. NOAA is directed to prepare an assessment of
the National impact of this program and submit such
assessment to the Committees on Appropriations no later than
March 15, 2001. The conference agreement does not include
funding for the Non-Point Pollution program authorized under
section 6217 of the CZMA. The conference agreement also
includes $9,750,000 for the National Estuarine Research
Reserve System (NERRS) operations and maintenance program, an
increase of $3,750,000 above the current year level.
Marine Sanctuary Program.--The conference agreement
includes $20,500,000 for the National Marine Sanctuary
Program. Of this amount, $500,000 is provided to support the
activities of the Northwest Straits Citizens Advisory
Commission as outlined in the House and Senate reports.
national marine fisheries service
The conference agreement includes a total of $517,945,000
for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), instead of
$406,583,000, as recommended in the House bill and
$540,889,000, as recommended in the Senate report.
In addition, the conference agreement includes $4,000,000
to be collected under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to support the
Community and Individual Fishery Quota Program.
Resource Information.--The conference agreement provides
$119,945,000 for fisheries resource information. Within the
funds provided for resource information, $88,145,000 is
provided for the base programs. The conference agreement
includes $4,250,000 for west coast ground fish. NMFS is
directed to distribute this funding to appropriate labs based
on the current year distribution, and no labs should receive
less than current year funding. Funding above the amounts for
the base program is as follows: $1,700,000 is to expand stock
assessments; $850,000 is for MARMAP; $2,500,000 is for the
Gulf of Mexico consortium; and $200,000 is for the Atlantic
Herring and Mackerel initiative. In addition, NMFS is
expected to continue to provide onsite technical assistance
to the National Warmwater Aquaculture Research Center and
provide $250,000 from base resources for the harvest
technology unit under this direction included in the Senate
report. In addition, $500,000 is provided for the Hawaiian
Community Development Program and fishery demonstration
projects for native fisheries, as referenced in the Senate
report.
In addition, within the total funds provided for resource
information, the conference agreement includes: $6,500,000
for the Gulf of Alaska for continued implementation of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, as referenced in the Senate report;
$1,000,000 for research on Alaska near shore fisheries, to be
distributed as in the current year; $850,000 for the
Chesapeake Bay oyster recovery partnership; $3,000,000 for
research on the Charleston bump; $300,000 for research on
shrimp pathogens; $150,000 for lobster sampling; $600,000,
for bluefin tuna tagging initiative for the New England
Aquarium; $300,000 for Chinook Salmon research in the NMFS
Auke Bay laboratory; $750,000 for Magnuson-Stevens Act
implementation; $200,000 for the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center for the Cooperative Marine Education and Research
Program, under the direction in the Senate report; $300,000
for research on Southeastern sea turtles; $200,000 for the
Kotzebue Sound test fishery for king crab and sea snail;
$1,000,000 for the State of Alaska for the Bering Sea crab;
$350,000 for the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources Biological Identification Program; and $1,000,000
for the Tri-Coastal Marine Stock Assessment. In addition,
within the amounts provided for Resource Information,
$8,000,000 is included to continue the aquatic resources
environmental initiative. NOAA is directed to continue
working with the Xiphophorus Genetic Stock Center to improve
the understanding of fish genetics and evolution.
NMFS is directed to continue collaborative research with
the Center for Shark Research and other qualified
institutions to provide the information necessary for
effective management of the highly migratory shark fishery
and conservation of shark fishery resources.
Funding for the Chesapeake Bay Multi-Species Management
Strategy has been moved to the Chesapeake Bay Office line,
for a total of $2,500,000 for the office, of which $500,000
is for multi-species management, including blue crabs.
Under the MARFIN line, $3,250,000 is provided for base
activities, including $750,000 for activities relating to red
snapper research, and $250,000 is provided for Northeast
activities.
Funding for right whale research and recovery activities is
provided under the Endangered Species line. Under the Yukon
River Chinook Salmon line, $1,000,000 is provided for base
activities, and $500,000 is provided for the Yukon River
Drainage Fisheries Association. Under the Pacific Salmon
Treaty Program, $5,587,000 is provided for base activities,
$1,844,000 is provided for the Chinook Salmon Agreement, and
funding is provided for the North Pacific Research Board, as
referenced in the Senate report. The conference agreement
includes $12,300,000 for Steller sea lion recovery, to be
allocated according to the direction in the Senate report.
Senate language regarding the Administration's reduction of
funding for Steller sea lion recovery is included by
reference.
Senate language regarding computer hardware and software
funding is included by reference.
Funding for bluefish/striped bass has been provided as
follows: $450,000 for the NMFS base research program,
$800,000 for the Cooperative Marine Education and Research
Program in New Jersey, and $250,000 for other existing
bluefish/striped bass research.
[[Page 24663]]
Funding of $2,500,000 is provided for a cooperative
research program to address the lack of sufficient funding
for research for the southeast.
Fishery Industry Information.--The conference agreement
provides $37,630,000 for this activity. Within the $6,750,000
provided for Alaska groundfish monitoring, the conference
agreement includes $3,125,000 for the base program, of which
$1,600,000 is to implement requirements of the American
Fisheries Act and the crab and scallop fisheries management
plans; $1,000,000 for a winter pollock survey in Alaska; and
current year levels for NMFS rockfish research, crab
management, and external rockfish research. In addition, the
conference agreement provides $175,000 for the Gulf of Alaska
Coastal Communities Coalition, $300,000 for the NMFS Alaska
region infield monitoring program, and $150,000 for the
Bering Sea Fisherman's Association CDQ.
Within the funds provided for fish statistics, the
conference agreement provides $13,180,000 for the base
program, $1,000,000 for the National Standard 8 program,
$2,000,000 for research and data collection on fishing
communities and economics; and $1,500,000 for the Atlantic
States Marine Fishery Commission as referenced by the Senate
report. Of the $3,700,000 for recreational fishery harvest
monitoring, $500,000 is for the annual collection of data on
marine recreational fishing, with the balance to be expended
in accordance with the direction included in the Senate
report. Funds are also appropriated under the Fish Industry
Information activity for the Pacific Fisheries Information
Network, including Hawaii, and the Alaska Fisheries
Information Network as two separate lines, in accordance with
the direction included in the Senate report. In addition, of
the funding, $3,500,000 is provided for the Gulf of Mexico
Fisheries Information Network.
Under the Acquisition of Data line, within the total of
$26,900,000, $957,000 is provided for additional days at sea
for data acquisition.
Fisheries Management Programs.--The conference agreement
includes $62,888,000 for this activity. Within this amount,
$29,288,000 is provided for base activities, and $4,000,000
is for NMFS facilities maintenance. In addition, $21,000,000
is included to provide increases for data collection on
fishery management programs, including $8,000,000 to respond
to lawsuits under the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA),
$3,000,000 for research regarding Hawaiian sea turtles
related lawsuits, and $10,000,000 for research regarding the
Alaska Steller sea lion and pollock lawsuit. The requested
levels for the Atlantic Salmon Recovery Plan, the State of
Maine Recovery Plan, and Rancho Nuevo sea turtles are
included. Funding is included for continuation of the Bronx
River recovery and restoration project as referenced in the
House report; $300,000 for the Connecticut River Partnership;
and $150,000 for Chinook Salmon management; and $6,700,000 is
for American Fisheries Act Implementation, including $500,000
each for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the
State of Alaska.
The conference agreement appropriates a total of
$14,055,000 for NMFS support of the Columbia River hatcheries
program. NMFS is expected to support base hatchery operations
at a level of $11,400,000, $600,000 is for fall chinook
rearing, $1,700,000 is provided for monitoring and evaluation
efforts, and $300,000 is for conservation marking as
referenced in the Senate report.
Under the Pacific Tuna Management line, $400,000 is for
swordfish research as referenced in the Senate report and the
balance is for JIMAR.
For New England Fisheries Management, $5,000,000 is
provided as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. The
conference agreement also includes a transfer of $15,000,000
from USDA (P.L. 106-78) for NE cooperative fisheries.
Protected Species Management.--Within the funds provided
for protected species management, $750,000 is for
continuation of a study on the impacts of California sea
lions and harbor seals on salmonids and the West Coast
ecosystem, $1,500,000 is provided for the State of Maine
salmon recovery, and $750,000 is for bottle-nosed dolphins.
Driftnet Act Implementation.--Within the funds provided for
Driftnet Act Implementation, $150,000 is for Pacific Rim
Fisheries Program, $200,000 is for Washington and Alaska
participation, and $250,000 is for Russian EEZ observers.
Marine Mammal Protection Act.--Within funds provided,
$900,000 is for harbor seal research in Alaska.
Endangered Species Recovery Plans.--A total of $55,338,000
is provided for this activity. Of these amounts, $1,500,000
is for technical support to the State of Washington, $850,000
is for Alaskan Steller sea lion recovery, $2,700,000 is for
other species, $3,338,000 is for sea turtles, $36,450,000 is
for the Pacific salmon recovery initiative, $3,500,000 is for
marine mammals, $2,000,000 for Atlantic Salmon recovery, and
$5,000,000 is for right whales. Within the amount provided
for right whales, NMFS is directed to make tagging whales a
priority. NMFS is directed to make $2,900,000 available to
the Northeast Consortium to administer a competitive grants
program, open to all Atlantic coastal States, using an
independent review panel of experts and scientists in the
field, to fund research on whale-friendly fishing gear and
operations, surveys and studies to reduce potential conflicts
between right whales and local industries, and other research
including tagging, acoustic studies, habitat research and
hydrodynamic modeling studies. Of the funding provided,
$2,100,000 is to help meet its responsibilities for the
implementation of programs, research, and enforcement
activities for the recovery of the right whale, including the
use of aerial surveys, of which no more than 30 percent can
be used for salaries. Due to the Department of Commerce's
delay in providing a spending plan and allocating right whale
funds in fiscal year 2000, NMFS is directed to provide the
Committees on Appropriations no later than January 30, 2001,
with a spending plan for fiscal year 2001. In addition, the
Committee expects NMFS to develop and submit by July 31,
2001, a five-year research and management plan to facilitate
right whale recovery.
Native Marine Mammal Commissions.--The conference agreement
recommends that funding be distributed at current year
levels.
Observers and Training.--The conference agreement
distributes funding as follows: (1) $425,000 for the North
Pacific fishery observer training program; (2) $1,875,000 for
North Pacific marine resources observers; (3) $350,000 for
east coast observers; (4) $2,275,000 for west cost observers;
(5) $1,200,000 for Hawaii; and (6) $350,000 for Atlantic
observers. NMFS is directed to submit a spending plan prior
to allocation of funding. Senate language regarding
enforcement and surveillance is adopted by reference.
Interstate Fish Commissions.--The conference agreement
includes $8,000,000 for this activity, of which $750,000 is
to be equally divided among the three commissions, and
$7,250,000 is for implementation of the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Cooperative Management Act.
Other.--In addition, within the funds available for the
Saltonstall-Kennedy grants program, NMFS is directed to
provide to the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation
funding to be used in accordance with the direction included
in the Senate report, and to provide funds pursuant to the
direction included in the House report to support ongoing
efforts related to Vibrio vulnificus. Senate report regarding
the Hawaiian fisheries development program and the Oceanic
Institute is adopted by reference.
oceanic and atmospheric research
The conference agreement includes a total of $323,189,000
for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research activities, instead of
$264,561,000 as recommended in the House bill and
$318,210,000 as recommended in the Senate-reported amendment.
Inerannual and Seasonal Climate Research.--The conference
agreement includes $14,943,000 for interannual and seasonal
climate research, of which $2,000,000 is for the Institute
for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space.
Climate and Global Change Research.--The conference
agreement includes $68,500,000 for the Climate and Global
Change research program, of which $750,000 is above base
resources for the International Research Institute for
Climate Prediction to restore it to the fiscal year 2000
appropriated level of funding. Of the amounts provided,
$1,000,000 is for the variability beyond ENSO activity,
$1,000,000 is the climate forming agents activity, and
$2,000,000 is for refinement of climate models.
Climate Observations & Services.--The conference agreement
includes $1,000,000 for climate data and information;
$2,000,000 for baseline observations; $5,000,000 for ocean
observations; $3,000,000 for the climate reference network;
and $1,250,000 for an ice research program at the Thayer
School of Engineering.
Long-Term Climate and Air Quality Research.--The conference
agreement provides $33,019,000 for this activity. Funding is
distributed as follows: $27,850,000 for base; $500,000 for
the California study; and $4,669,000 for the Health of the
Atmosphere initiative.
Atmosphere Programs.--The conference agreement provides
$37,500,000 for this activity. Of this amount, $1,000,000 is
provided for research related to wind-profile data in
accordance with the direction provided in the Senate report.
In addition, $1,500,000 is provided for the U.S. Weather
Research Program for hurricane-related research.
STORM.--The conference agreement includes $350,000 for the
Science Center for Teaching, Outreach and Research on
Meteorology for the collection and analysis of weather data
in the Midwest.
Marine Prediction Research.--The conference agreement
includes $32,525,000 for marine prediction research. Within
this amount, the following is provided: $9,825,000 for the
base program; $1,650,000 for Arctic research; $2,400,000 for
the Open Ocean Aquaculture program; $3,300,000 for tsunami
mitigation, of which $1,000,000 is for TWEAK; $150,000 for a
Lake Champlain Study; $2,100,000 for the VENTS program;
$4,300,000 for continuation of the initiative on aquatic
ecosystems, including $300,000 for a nitrogen study;
$1,650,000 for implementation of the National Invasive
Species Act, of which $850,000 is for the Chesapeake Bay
ballast water demonstration; $100,000 for the Lake
[[Page 24664]]
Champlain Canal Barrier Demonstration, as referenced in
Senate report; $500,000 for additional resources to support
Hypoxia research; $2,600,000 for mariculture research; and
$450,000 for the Pacific tropical fish program to be
administered by HIEDA. The conference agreement includes
$2,000,000 for the ocean exploration initiative, as
referenced in Senate report; $500,000 for the International
Pacific Research Center at the University of Hawaii, and
$1,000,000 for the SE Atlantic Marine monitoring and
prediction center at the University of North Carolina, as
referenced in the Senate report.
GLERL.--Within the $7,000,000 provided for the Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory, the conference agreement
assumes continued support for the Great Lakes nearshore and
zebra mussel research programs at current levels.
Sea Grant.--The conference agreement includes $62,250,000
for the National Sea Grant program, of which $56,250,000 is
for the base program. Sea Grant is directed to fund the
oyster disease research program at $2,000,000, an increase of
$500,000, and to maintain current levels for the zebra mussel
research program and the Gulf of Mexico oyster program. The
Sea Grant program is directed to develop a research plan to
address the causes of harmful algal blooms and a monitoring
and prevention program and submit to the Committees on
Appropriations by June 30, 2001.
National Undersea Research Program (NURP).--The conference
agreement includes $15,800,000 for the National Undersea
Research Program (NURP). The Senate report included
$17,800,000 for this program; the House did not include
funding for this program. Of the amount provided, $6,900,000
is for research conducted through the east coast NURP centers
and $6,900,000 is for the west coast NURP centers, including
Hawaiian and Pacific center and the west coast and polar
regions center. The conferees expect level funding will be
available for Aquarius, ALVIN, and program administration. Of
the amount provided, $2,000,000 is for the National Center
for Natural Products.
national weather service
The conference agreement includes a total of $630,802,000
for the National Weather Service (NWS), instead of
$621,726,000 as proposed in the House bill, and $631,339,000
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
Local Warnings and Forecasts.--The conference agreement
includes $462,180,000 for this activity, including
$452,280,000 for base, $4,790,000 for mitigation activities,
and $400,000 for the Cooperative Observers Network. The NWS
is directed to submit a spending plan to the Committees on
Appropriations for the Cooperative Observers Network. Within
the total amount provided for Local Warnings and Forecasts,
$270,000 is for the North Dakota Agricultural Weather
Network, $590,000 is for the University of Utah for support
to the Winter Olympics; and $500,000 is for the Mount
Washington Observatory, as directed in Senate report. The NWS
is directed to follow direction in the Senate report relating
to ``the 1995 Secretary's Report to Congress on the Adequacy
of NEXRAD Coverage and Degradation of Weather Services'', and
to make appropriate arrangements for Erie, PA and Williston,
ND. Of the funds provided for Local Warnings and Forecasts,
$3,350,000 is provided for data buoys, of which $1,700,000 is
for Alaska.
Weather Radio Transmitters.--Of the amount provided,
$2,323,000 is provided for base; $500,000 is for the sate of
Illinois, to complete state-wide implementation; $77,000 is
for a transmitter in Mason County, Kentucky; $100,000 is for
Melba, Mississippi transmitters; $100,000 is for Barrow,
Alaska; $125,000 is for New Hampshire; $855,000 is for
Kentucky, including Elizabethtown; $150,000 is for South
Dakota; and $78,000 is for a transmitter in Steuben County,
Indiana.
national environmental satellite, data and information service
The conference agreement includes $125,235,000 for NOAA's
satellite and data management programs. In addition, the
conference agreement includes $580,977,000 under the NOAA PAC
account for satellite systems acquisition and related
activities.
Satellite Observing Systems.--The conferees have included
$60,300,000 for this activity, an increase of $3,000,000 for
the Global Disaster Information Network (GDIN). Funding for
other services is consistent with current year levels.
Funding for the wind demonstration project is to be provided
in accordance with the direction in the Senate report.
Environmental Data Management.--The conference agreement
includes: $64,935,000 for EDMS activities. For EDMS base
activities, the conference agreement includes $25,000,000. No
funds are included to continue weather record rescue and
preservation activities or the environmental data rescue
program. The conference agreement includes $500,000 for the
Cooperative Observers Network modernization. In addition,
$6,000,000 is included for the Coastal Ocean Data Development
Center and $2,500,000 for the Center for Spatial Data
Research at Jackson State University. The conference
agreement provides $15,700,000 to continue the multi-year
program of climate database modernization and utilization, as
referenced in the House report. The conference agreement
includes $2,900,000 for the Regional Climate Centers.
program support
The conference agreement provides $81,305,000 for NOAA
program support, instead of $58,094,000 as provided in the
House report, and $68,805,000, as provided in the Senate-
reported amendment. Included in this total is $11,809,000 for
Aircraft Services, including an increase to base of $800,000
for increased fuel costs. Included in the amount provided,
$15,000,000 is for the new educational program with Minority
Serving Institutions. Under Departmental Management, the
Commerce Department is directed to submit reports on the
Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS)
implementation, as referenced in the Senate report.
The conference agreement includes $750,000 to fund a study
to review the ability of NMFS to adequately meet its legal
missions and requirements. NOAA is expected to have the
review headed by an individual from outside the agency who is
familiar with oceans and fishery management issues. The
individual selected must seek the assistance of the National
Academy of Sciences and the American Society of Public
Administration in conducting a top to bottom review of NMFS
programs, budgetary requirements, management, and constituent
relations. This review must be completed within one year.
NOAA is expected to give regular progress reports to the
Committees on Appropriations prior to submitting the final
written report outlining the findings and recommendations for
the future.
fleet planning and maintenance
The conference agreement includes $11,010,000 for this
activity, instead of $7,000,000 in the House report, and
$19,004,000 in the Senate-reported amendment. The amount
provided includes $9,294,000 for base and $1,716,000 for
additional days at sea and general maintenance.
facilities
The conference agreement includes $11,235,000 for
facilities maintenance, lease costs, and environmental
compliance, instead of $11,015,000 as proposed in the House
report, and $31,267,000 as recommended in the Senate report.
The Department of Commerce is directed to continue working
with the General Services Administration (GSA) to address the
39 percent increase in GSA rental charges for the Boulder
facility, as referenced in the Senate report language.
procurement, acquisition and construction
(including transfers of funds)
The conference agreement includes a total of $682,899,000
in direct appropriations for the Procurement, Acquisition and
Construction account, and assumes $7,504,000 in deobligations
from this account. The following distribution reflects the
fiscal year 2001 funding provided for activities within this
account:
Systems Acquisition:
CAMS......................................................$19,823,000
ASOS........................................................3,855,000
NEXRAD......................................................8,280,000
Computer Facilities Upgrade................................15,085,000
Evansville Doppler..........................................5,500,000
Polar Spacecraft and Launching............................210,310,000
Geostationary Spacecraft and Launching....................290,824,000
Radiosonde Replacement......................................5,000,000
AWIPS......................................................16,300,000
National Data Archives......................................2,000,000
GFDL Supercomputer..........................................4,000,000
________________
Subtotal, Systems Acquisition...........................580,977,000
================
Construction:
WFO Construction............................................9,526,000
NERRS Construction..........................................7,500,000
N.Y. Botanical Garden.......................................3,500,000
Alaska Facilities..........................................19,000,000
National Marine Life Center...................................800,000
Norman, Oklahoma............................................3,000,000
Aquatic Resources...........................................5,000,000
Pribilof Cleanup............................................6,000,000
Folley Beach Tract..........................................2,000,000
Suitland Facility..........................................15,000,000
Kasitsna Bay Lab/Kachemak Bay...............................5,000,000
Great Bay...................................................5,000,000
________________
Subtotal, Construction...................................81,326,000
================
Fleet Replacement:
Fishery Research Vessel Replacement.........................8,300,000
ADVENTUROUS Refurbishment...................................8,000,000
FAIRWEATHER Refurbishment...................................6,800,000
Navy Surplus Coastal Research Vessel........................5,000,000
________________
Subtotal, Fleet Replacement..............................28,100,000
Systems Acquisition.--Of the funding provided for Polar
Spacecraft and Launching, $73,325,000 is for Polar
Convergence. A total of $290,824,000 for the Geostationary
Spacecraft and Launching line is provided as requested in the
budget.
Construction.--The funds appropriated for National
Estuarine Research Reserve construction are to be distributed
as follows: $7,000,000 is for overall NERRS requirements,
[[Page 24665]]
and $500,000 is for the Jacques Cousteau NERRS. The funds
appropriated for Alaska facilities are to be distributed as
follows: $15,000,000 is for the Juneau Lab, and $4,000,000 is
for the SeaLife Center. The conference agreement includes
$3,000,000 for architecture and engineering of a building for
the University of Oklahoma. The conference agreement assumes
that funding for NOAA's occupancy of the proposed building
will be based on an operating lease arrangement once the
building has been constructed by the University of Oklahoma
and is ready for NOAA occupancy.
In addition, the conference agreement includes $15,000,000
for NOAA's Suitland, Maryland facility. Funding is provided
to cover those costs in addition to the basic building costs
provided by the GSA. Bill language is included to prohibit
the Department of Commerce from paying the traditional GSA
building requirements for the Suitland facility.
Fleet Replacement.--The conference agreement includes
funding for the refurbishment of the Fairweather in Alaska
and the Navy Surplus YTT vessel, other than baseline
operations, in South Carolina.
coastal and ocean activities
In addition to the funds provided to the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration in the above table and
narrative, the conference agreement includes an additional
$420,000,000 for special purposes. Of this amount,
$150,000,000 is for coastal impact assistance as authorized
by section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Act for fiscal
year 2001 only and does not alter the underlying
authorization; $135,000,000 is for ocean, coastal and
conservation programs, and $135,000,000 is for National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs. Of the funds
provided for ocean, coastal and conservation programs,
$10,000,000 is provided for implementation of Sate nonpoint
pollution control plans pursuant to section 6217 of the
Coastal Zone Act, as amended, other than non-contiguous
States except Hawaii; $30,000,000 is for competitive grants
for coastal communities in the Great Lakes region;
$14,000,000 is for the University of New Hampshire marine
facilities program; $1,000,000 is for the Sea Coast Science
Center; $3,000,000 is for the Great Bay Partnership;
$1,000,000 is for the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services Marsh Restoration initiative;
$1,000,000 is for the Mississippi Laboratories at Pascagoula,
$8,000,000 is for the ACE Basin NERRS Research Center
construction, $2,500,000 is for Winyah Bay land acquisition,
$2,000,000 is for ACE Basin Land Acquisition, $10,000,000 is
for the Sealife Center, $4,000,000 is for Kachameck Bay NERRS
research center construction; $1,000,000 is for the Raritan,
N.J. NERRS land acquisition; $10,000,000 is for DuPage River
restoration; $1,000,000 if for Detroit River restoration,
$500,000 is for lower Rouge River restoration; $8,500,000 is
for Bronx River restoration and land acquisition; $16,000,000
is for a grant for Eastern Kentucky Pride, Inc., of which
$11,000,000 is for design and construction of facilities for
water protection and related environmental infrastructure,
and $5,000,000 is for the aquatic resources environmental
initiative; $3,000,000 is for a grant to the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources for brown marsh research,
mitigation and nutria control; $2,000,000 is for land
acquisition in southern Orange County, California for
conservation of coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats;
$3,000,000 is for planning, renovation and construction of
facilities for a new national estuarine research reserve in
San Francisco, California; $2,000,000 is for a grant to the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for species management
and esturaine habitat conservation; and $1,500,000 is for a
grant to the Pinellas County Environmental Foundation for the
Tampa Bay watershed. Of the funds provided for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs, $5,000,000
is for National Estuarine Research Reserve operations,
$12,000,000 is for Marine Sanctuary operations, $8,500,000
for Coastal Zone Management, $1,500,000 for CZMA Program
Administration, $4,000,000 is for marine mammal strandings,
$14,000,000 is for the National Ocean Service's protection of
coral reefs program, $11,000,000 is for the National Marine
Fisheries Service's Coral reefs program, $36,000,000 is for
additional amounts for the purpose of the Pacific Coastal
Salmon Recovery account, $6,000,000 is for fisheries habitat
restoration, $15,000,000 is for NOAA's Cooperative
Enforcement initiative, $3,000,000 is for Atlantic coast
observers, $3,000,000 is for Cooperative Research, $3,000,000
is for Red Snapper research, $3,000,000 is for Aquaculture,
$5,000,000 is for Harmful Algal Bloom research, $2,000,000 is
for the Ocean Exploration initiative, and $3,000,000 is for
Marine Sanctuary construction. The amounts provided under
this heading for certain activities for ocean, coastal and
waterway conservation programs are in addition to amounts
provided elsewhere in this bill.
Of the $135,000,000 provided for NOAA programs, NOAA is
directed to develop and submit to the Committees on
Appropriations an implementation plan for the additional
funding initiatives by February 28, 2001.
Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants.--The conference
agreement includes a new appropriation of $30,000,000 for
matching grants to be awarded competitively to state and
local governments to undertake coastal and water quality
restoration projects in the Great Lakes region. Proposals
funded under this program should be consistent with a Great
Lakes State's approved coastal management program under
section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Restoration
projects eligible for funding would include contaminated site
cleanup, stormwater controls, wetland restoration,
acquisition of greenways and buffers, and other projects
designed to control polluted runoff and protect and restore
coastal resources. NOAA is directed to develop and submit to
the Committees on Appropriations an implementation plan for
this initiative no later than January 15, 2001.
pacific salmon coastal recovery
In fiscal year 2000, funding for the Southern Fund was
provided under the NOAA, ORF account heading. The conference
agreement includes funding for the Northern Transboundary
Fund and Southern Transboundary Fund under this heading, in
addition to funding provided within the Department of State.
The conference agreement includes the full amount requested
for the funds and for a payment to the State of Washington.
In addition, the conference agreement includes $54,000,000
for salmon habitat restoration, stock enhancement, and
research. Of this amount, $18,000,000 is provided to the
State of Washington, $10,000,000 is provided to the State of
Alaska, $9,000,000 is provided to the State of Oregon, and
$9,000,000 is provided to the State of California. In
addition, $6,000,000 is provided for coastal tribes, and
$2,000,000 for river tribes. Of the funds made available to
the State of Washington, $4,000,000 shall be allocated
through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board directly to the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources and other
State and Federal agencies for purposes of implementing the
State of Washington's Forest and Fish Report. The monies
shall be spent in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the Forest and Fish Report and consistent with the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water
Act. Of the funding made available to the State of Alaska,
$350,000 shall be used to continue the operation of the
Crystal Lake hatchery in Petersburg, and $1,000,000 for the
Metlakatla hatchery. None of the $54,000,000 shall be used
for the buy back of commercial fishing licenses or vessels.
The conference agreement includes language proposed in the
House bill making funding under this heading subject to
express authorization. The Senate-reported amendment did not
include this language.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT FUND
The conference agreement includes an appropriation of
$3,200,000 as provided in the Senate-reported amendment,
instead of $4,000,000 as provided in the House bill. This
amount is reflected under the National Ocean Service within
the Operations, Research, and Facilities account.
FISHERMEN'S CONTINGENCY FUND
The conference agreement includes $952,000 for the
Fishermen's Contingency Fund. The House bill included
$951,000 and the Senate-reported amendment included $953,000
for this program.
foreign fishing observer fund
The conference agreement includes $191,000 for the expenses
related to the Foreign Fishing Observer Fund, as provided in
the Senate-reported amendment. The House bill included
$189,000 for this program
fisheries finance program account
The conference agreement provides $288,000 in subsidy
amounts for the Fisheries Finance Program Account, instead of
$238,000 as provided in the House bill and $338,000 as
provided in the Senate-reported amendment. Funding is
provided in accordance with the Senate-reported amendment.
Departmental Management
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $35,920,000 for the
departmental management of the Commerce Department, instead
of $28,392,000, as proposed in the House bill, and
$32,340,000, as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment; of
which $4,000,000 is provided for the Department's re-wiring
initiative. No funding is provided for the security
initiative. Funding of $19,823,000 is provided within NOAA
for the Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS). The
Commerce Department is directed to submit quarterly reports
for implementation of CAMS, the initial report should include
an overview of planned CAMS implementation, including
milestones, and cost estimates for each stage of deployment.
All subsequent reports should outline progress in meeting the
milestones and spending targets.
Office of Inspector General
The conference agreement includes $20,000,000 for the
Commerce Department Inspector General, instead of $21,000,000
as recommended in the House bill and $19,000,000 as
recommended in the Senate-reported amendment. The Inspector
General is reminded that office closings, staff reductions,
or reorganizations are subject to the reprogramming
procedures outlined in section 605 of this Act.
[[Page 24666]]
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The conference agreement includes the following general
provisions for the Department of Commerce:
Sec. 201.--The conference agreement includes section 201,
included in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, regarding certifications of advanced payments.
Sec. 202.--The conference agreement includes section 202,
identical in the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, allowing funds to be used for hire of passenger
motor vehicles.
Sec. 203.--The conference agreement includes section 203,
identical in the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, prohibiting reimbursement to the Air Force for
hurricane reconnaissance planes.
Sec. 204.--The conference agreement includes section 204,
identical in the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, prohibiting funds from being used to reimburse the
Unemployment Trust Fund for temporary census workers. The
Senate-reported amendment included a provision prohibiting
reimbursements in relation to the 1990 decennial census.
Sec. 205.--The conference agreement includes section 205,
as proposed in the House bill, regarding transfer authority
among Commerce Department appropriation accounts. The Senate-
reported amendment proposed to increase the percentage of
funding available for transfer.
The conference agreement does not include section 206 of
the House bill providing for the notification of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations of a plan for
transferring funds to appropriate successor organizations
within 90 days of enactment of any legislation dismantling or
reorganizing the Department of Commerce. The Senate bill did
not contain a provision on this matter.
Sec. 206.--The conference agreement includes section 206,
included in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, requiring that any costs related to personnel
actions incurred by a department or agency funded in title II
of the accompanying Act be absorbed within the total
budgetary resources available to such department or agency,
with a modification to include loan collateral and grants
protection.
Sec. 207.--The conference agreement includes section 207,
as proposed in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, allowing the Secretary to award contracts for
certain mapping and charting activities in accordance with
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act.
Sec. 208.--The conference agreement includes section 208,
as proposed in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment with minor technical changes, allowing the
Department of Commerce Franchise Fund to retain a portion of
its earnings from services provided.
Sec. 209.--The conference agreement includes section 209,
modified from a provision in the Senate-reported amendment,
to provide $14,000,000 within the ``National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Construction of Research
Facilities'' account, for four construction projects. Of this
amount, $4,000,000 is appropriated to the Institute at Saint
Anselm College, $4,000,000 is for a cooperative agreement
with the Medical University of South Carolina, $3,000,000 is
for the Thayer School of Engineering for the biocommodity and
biomass research initiative, and $3,000,000 is appropriated
to establish the Institute for Information Infrastructure
Protection at the Institute for Security Technology Studies.
In addition, of the amounts provided within the NOAA PAC
account, $5,000,000 is provided for a grant to Pride, Inc.
Sec. 210.--The conference agreement includes a new
provision, numbered as section 210, which establishes the Dr.
Nancy Foster Memorial Scholarship program for advanced
degrees in marine studies, as part of the National Marine
Sanctuary Program.
TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY
Supreme Court of the United States
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $37,591,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Supreme Court, as provided in
the Senate-reported amendment, instead of $36,782,000 as
provided in the House bill.
House report language with respect to law clerk selection
is adopted by reference.
care of the building and grounds
The conference agreement includes $7,530,000 for the
Supreme Court Care of the Building and Grounds account, as
provided in the House bill and the Senate-reported amendment.
This is the amount the Architect of the Capitol currently
estimates is required for fiscal year 2001.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $17,930,000 for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as provided in the
Senate-reported amendment, instead of $17,846,000 as provided
in the House bill. This provides funding for base adjustments
and two additional assistants. No funding is provided for
additional staff in the Clerk's office.
United States Court of International Trade
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $12,456,000 for the U.S.
Court of International Trade as provided in the Senate-
reported amendment, instead of $12,299,000 as provided in the
House bill.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement provides $3,359,725,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Federal Judiciary as provided in
the Senate-reported amendment, instead of $3,328,778,000 as
provided in the House bill.
House report language with respect to the Southwest Border
is adopted by reference.
An April 2000 review of Federal judges sharing of
courtrooms prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
indicated that courtroom sharing by judges should not cause
trial delays for a significant number of trials, and that for
the few that might be delayed the waiting time would be less
than half a day. The CBO study also found that many
courtrooms are in use for a small percentage of the available
workdays. A study of the Judiciary's space and facilities
program recently completed by Ernst and Young, however,
suggested that requiring judges to share courtrooms is not
practical. The Ernst and Young report stated that current
court records do not adequately track courtroom usage, making
it difficult to determine if courtroom sharing by Federal
judges is a viable option. The conference agreement directs
CBO to review and comment on the Ernst and Young report, and
to provide the Committees on Appropriations with its findings
no later than February 1, 2001. The Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts shall provide such assistance as may be
necessary to CBO to complete its review. This issue is of
great importance because any reduction in the number of
courtrooms and associated court space could significantly
reduce rental payments, which continue to consume an
inordinate amount of the Judiciary's available resources.
vaccine injury compensation trust fund
The conference agreement provides $2,602,000 from the
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund for expenses
associated with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of
1986 as provided in the Senate-reported amendment, instead of
$2,600,000 as provided in the House bill.
defender services
The conference agreement includes $435,000,000 for the
Federal Judiciary's Defender Services account, instead of
$420,338,000 as provided in the House bill, and $416,368,000
as provided in the Senate-reported amendment. The conference
agreement directs that a portion of the funds made available
be used for an increase to $75 an hour for in-court time and
$55 an hour for out-of-court time for Criminal Justice Act
panel attorneys.
Language relating to capital habeas corpus costs in the
House report is adopted by reference.
fees of jurors and commissioners
The conference agreement includes $59,567,000 for Fees of
Jurors and Commissioners, as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of $60,821,000 as provided in the House
bill.
court security
The conference agreement includes $199,575,000 for the
Federal Judiciary's Court Security account as provided in the
Senate-reported amendment, instead of $198,265,000 as
proposed in the House bill. Of the amount provided,
$10,000,000 for security system funding shall remain
available until expended.
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $58,340,000 for the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts as provided
in the House bill, instead of $50,000,000 as provided in the
Senate-reported amendment.
Language in the introductory section relating to the
Federal Judiciary in the House report with respect to the
Optimal Utilization of Judicial Resources report is adopted
by reference.
Federal Judicial Center
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $18,777,000 for fiscal
year 2001 salaries and expenses of the Federal Judicial
Center as provided in the House bill, instead of $19,215,000
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. Of the amount
provided, $1,000 shall be available for official reception
and representation expenses, as provided in the House bill,
instead of $1,500 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment.
Judicial Retirement Funds
payment to judiciary trust funds
The conference agreement includes $35,700,000 for payment
to the various judicial retirement funds, as provided in both
[[Page 24667]]
the House bill and the Senate-reported amendment.
United States Sentencing Commission
salaries and expenses
The conference agreement includes $9,931,000 for the U.S.
Sentencing Commission, as provided in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of $9,615,000 as provided in the House
bill.
General Provisions--The Judiciary
Section 301.--The conference agreement includes a provision
included in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment allowing appropriations to be used for services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 302.--The conference agreement includes a provision as
proposed in the House bill related to the transfer of funds,
instead of the modification proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. The House report language with respect to section
302 is incorporated by reference.
Sec. 303.--The conference agreement includes a provision
included in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment allowing up to $11,000 of salaries and expenses
provided in this title to be used for official reception and
representation expenses of the Judicial Conference of the
United States.
Sec. 304.--The conference agreement includes a provision
included in the House bill to authorize the Judiciary to
appoint statutory certifying officers who will be responsible
for verifying the receipt of and payment for goods and
services. This authority is currently available to the
Executive Branch. The Senate-reported amendment did not
contain a similar provision.
Sec. 305.--The conference agreement includes a new
provision authorizing ten district judgeships, one for each
of the following states: Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Nevada,
New Mexico, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin; and two
additional district judgeships for Texas. In addition, the
section directs the chief judge of the eastern district of
Wisconsin to designate one judge who shall hold court for
such district in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Sec. 306.--The conference agreement includes a new
provision that allows the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit to appoint a circuit executive or a
clerk, but not both, or to appoint a combined circuit
executive/clerk.
Sec. 307.--The conference agreement includes a new
provision to extend to the Judiciary authority currently
available to the Legislative and Executive branches of
Government, to use appropriated funds to pay for the
employment of personal assistants. The language will allow
the judicial branch to hire readers for the blind,
interpreters for the deaf, and other personal assistants as
may be necessary for judges and other employees with
disabilities.
Sec. 308.--The conference agreement includes a new
provision to bring the Supreme Court Police into parity with
the retirement benefits provided to the United States Capitol
Police and other federal law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 309.--The conference agreement includes a provision,
modified from a provision proposed as section 304 in the
Senate-reported amendment. The modified language authorizes
Justices and judges of the United States to receive a salary
adjustment only if under each provision of law amended by
section 704(a)(2) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C.
5318 note), adjustments under 5 U.S.C. 5305 shall take effect
in fiscal year 2001. If such adjustments are made, then
$8,801,000 is appropriated for the cost of adjustments under
this Title. The House bill did not include a similar
provision on this matter.
The conference agreement does not include the Senate
provision related to honoraria or outside earnings limits for
Federal judges.
TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Administration of Foreign Affairs
DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PROGRAMS
The conference agreement includes a total of $3,168,725,000
for Diplomatic and Consular Programs, instead of
$3,089,325,000 as included in the House bill and
$3,148,494,000 as included in the Senate-reported amendment.
The conference agreement includes $2,718,725,000 for State
Department activities under this account, $40,000,000 related
to the implementation of the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty, and
an additional $410,000,000 to remain available until expended
for worldwide security upgrades.
The conference agreement includes language in this account,
and throughout this Title, that modifies citations of
authorization legislation carried in previous years. These
changes are intended to simplify and streamline bill
language, and are not intended to modify the authorities for
the use of funds under any account.
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment to modify the purposes for
which funds transferred from this account to the
``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service''
account may be used.
The conference agreement includes language, not included in
the House bill or the Senate-reported amendment, transferring
$1,400,000 to the Presidential Advisory Commission on
Holocaust Assets in the United States.
The conference agreement includes language, as proposed in
the House bill, which makes fees collected in fiscal year
2001 related to affidavits of support available until
expended. The Senate-reported amendment gave the Department
permanent authority to use such fee collections.
The conference agreement includes language designating
$246,644,000 for public diplomacy international information
programs as proposed in the House bill. The Senate-reported
amendment did not contain a similar provision. This amount
represents the full requested funding level for these program
activities.
The conference agreement includes language under this
account allowing the Department to collect and use
reimbursements for services provided to the press. This
language was proposed in the Senate-reported amendment under
``Representation Allowances''. The House bill did not contain
a provision on this matter.
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment to place limitations on
certain details of State Department senior executives to
other agencies or organizations. The House bill did not
include a similar provision.
The conference agreement does not include an earmark of
$5,000,000 under this account, as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment, for a payment to the City of Seattle for
costs incurred as host of the WTO Ministerial Conference. The
House bill did not include a provision on this matter. The
conference agreement addresses this issue under the
``Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials'' account.
The conference agreement does not adopt a Senate provision
providing $1,000,000 to establish an Ambassador's Fund for
Cultural Preservation. Instead, the Department shall identify
up to $1,000,000 from funds provided under this account for
an Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation as described
in the Senate report. United States Ambassadors in less-
developed countries may submit competitive proposals for one-
time or recurring projects with awards based on the
importance of the site, object, or form of expression, the
country's need, the impact of the United States contribution
to the preservation of the site, object, or form of
expression, and the anticipated benefit to the advancement of
United States diplomatic goals. The Department is directed to
submit an annual report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the selection process used, and on the
expenditure of funds by project.
The conference agreement includes language making
$5,000,000 available for overseas continuing language
education, instead of $10,000,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The House bill did not include a similar
provision. Language in the Senate report requiring a report
on the distribution of this funding is adopted by reference.
The conference agreement does not include language
earmarking $12,500,000 for the East-West Center, as proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment. The House bill did not
contain a similar provision. Funding for the East-West Center
is addressed under a separate heading in this Title.
The conference agreement does not include language
earmarking $1,350,000 for the Protection Project as proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment. The House bill did not
contain a similar provision. The Department is directed to
continue support for this activity.
The conference agreement includes language allowing certain
advances for services related to the Panama Canal Commission
to be credited to this account and to remain available until
expended, as proposed in the House bill. The Senate-reported
amendment did not include a similar provision.
The conference agreement includes a provision, modified
from language included in the Senate-reported amendment,
designating $40,000,000 under this account to implement the
1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Senate-reported amendment
provided $60,000,000 for this purpose, and the House bill did
not contain a similar provision. Of the amount provided,
$10,000,000 is for further capitalizing the Northern Boundary
Fund, $10,000,000 is for further capitalizing the Southern
Boundary Fund, and $20,000,000 is for the State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife as authorized under section
628 of this Act.
The conference agreement does not include a provision
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment regarding funding
for the Office of Defense Trade Controls. The Office is
expected to review applications, regardless of identified end
user, with the utmost scrutiny.
The conference agreement includes language requiring the
Department to notify Congress fifteen days in advance of
processing licenses for the export of satellites to the
People's Republic of China, as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The House bill included an identical
provision under the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Export
Administration.
The conference agreement includes a provision, not in the
House bill or the Senate-
[[Page 24668]]
reported amendment, to allow the Department to collect and
deposit Machine Readable Visa fees as offsetting collections
to this account in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 to recover
costs. The conference agreement does not include provisions
to limit the use of Machine Readable Visa fees in fiscal year
2001 and to make excess collections available in the
subsequent fiscal year, as carried in both the House bill and
the Senate-reported amendment. The House bill included a
fiscal year 2001 spending limitation of $342,667,000. The
Senate-reported amendment included a limitation of
$267,000,000.
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment earmarking funds for the
Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism and for the
preparation of a study on the U.S. Government response to an
international WMD terrorist event. The House bill did not
include a similar provision.
The conference agreement includes $410,000,000 for
worldwide security upgrades under this account as proposed in
the House bill, instead of $272,736,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment. The Department shall submit a
detailed spending plan by December 31, 2000, for the entire
amount provided for worldwide security upgrades. The House
report designated $66,000,000 for a perimeter security
initiative, and $16,000,000 to support additional staffing
for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, as requested. Since
the time of the budget request, the Department has notified
the Committees of increasing requirements to implement
perimeter security upgrades. The Department is expected to
reflect this development in the spending plan, increasing the
amount for perimeter security and decreasing the amount for
staffing. Any amount exceeding $8,000,000 for increased
staffing will be subject to reprogramming. The conference
agreement adopts, by reference, language in the Senate report
regarding bomb detection equipment and a report on certain
security issues.
The Committees acknowledge the Department's continuing
efforts to increase minority recruitment and diversity in the
Foreign Service and commend the Department for its ongoing
efforts to partner with Howard University and other
institutions. For FY 2001 the Department is directed to
supplement its minority recruitment activities by initiating
a model program to facilitate the entry of non-traditional
and minority students into foreign policy careers. This
program would provide a continuum of education and support
for successful students at two- and four-year colleges to
continue their studies at a university that provides
undergraduate programs for non-traditional students and
graduate studies in international and public affairs. The
Department is directed to provide $1,000,000 to the
educational partnership between Hostos Community College and
Columbia University in New York to establish such a model
program. It is expected that this new program would assist
members of minority groups in pursuing careers in the Foreign
Service and the State Department.
Within the amount provided under this account, and
including any savings the Department identifies, the
Department will have the ability to propose that funds be
used for purposes not specifically funded by the conference
agreement through the normal reprogramming process.
Extended tours, particularly at language incentive posts,
could improve efficiency and reduce costs. The Department is
directed to report to the Committees, not later than February
15, 2001 on: 1) cost savings by subaccount that would result
from four-year tours being adopted; 2) proposed changes to
promotion criteria necessary to accommodate four-year tours;
and 3) proposed four-year assignments by job description and
post with full justification.
The conference agreement does not adopt language in the
Senate report allocating additional funds to certain
geographic regions, but commends the Department's operations
in Buenos Aires, Argentina; Montevideo, Uruguay; and Sao
Paulo, Brazil. These posts are well run, language skills are
uniformly excellent, and personnel are genuinely enthusiastic
about, and deeply involved in, the local government,
community and culture. These posts serve as model embassies
to be emulated. The Department is urged to devote the
necessary resources to these posts to maintain the high
caliber of operations at each.
Questions have been raised concerning the adequacy of
current U.S. representation in Equatorial Guinea. Therefore,
the Department is directed to explore the establishment,
within resources currently available, of an American Presence
Post in Equatorial Guinea and to report to the Committees no
later than December 1, 2000, on the costs, staffing, and need
for such a post.
Increasing amounts of funding are requested under this
title for costs related to the absence or inadequacy of
democratic governance in Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone,
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. United Nations
peacekeeping missions in Kosovo and East Timor are, in fact,
surrogate governments, for which the United States is
assessed over thirty percent of the total costs. In order to
ensure that adequate and coordinated efforts are underway to
develop effective democratic governance, the Department is
directed to submit to the Committees a plan describing all
such U.S. Government-sponsored activities in these four
locations, and the anticipated results from these activities,
not later than May 1, 2001. The Department is directed to
coordinate closely with other U.S. Government agencies, the
United Nations, the National Endowment for Democracy, and
relevant non-governmental organizations in compiling the
plan.
The conference agreement adopts, by reference, language in
the House report regarding: reform and restructuring,
including the submission of a reorganization plan
corresponding with general provisions included in this title;
carrying out the recommendations of the Overseas Presence
Advisory Panel including the submission of a report; the
submission of a minority recruitment and hiring plan; the
Overseas Schools Advisory Council; the negotiation of
effective extradition treaties; and unfair treatment of U.S.
companies in Peru.
The conference agreement adopts, by reference, language in
the Senate report regarding: the Department's budget
justification books; amounts to be provided for the Arctic
Council and the Bering Straits Commission; the submission of
a plan regarding information about biotechnology abroad; and
a report on international sea turtle conservation efforts.
The conference agreement does not include language in the
Senate report on Sierra Leone and the Department's Bureau of
African Affairs.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUND
The conference agreement includes $97,000,000 for the
Capital Investment Fund, instead of $79,670,000 as proposed
in the House bill and $104,000,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The conference agreement does not include
language as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment
allowing the Department to retain control of its overseas
telecommunications infrastructure in the event that the
current joint management is abolished or dissolved.
Within the amount provided in this account, $17,000,000
shall be for a pilot project to establish a common technology
platform at overseas posts pursuant to the recommendations of
the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel. The conference
agreement includes the direction in the House report
requiring the submission of a spending plan for this pilot
project.
The conference agreement also includes, by reference, the
report on modernization projects and resulting efficiencies
requested in the House report.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
The conference agreement includes $28,490,000 for the
Office of Inspector General as proposed in the House bill,
instead of $29,395,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. The conference agreement includes, by reference,
the guidance included in both the House and Senate reports.
EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS
The conference agreement includes $231,587,000 for
Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs of the Department
of State, instead of $213,771,000 as proposed in the House
bill and $225,000,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. The conference agreement makes the funds provided
under this account available until expended as in previous
years, and as proposed in the House bill.
The following chart displays the conference agreement on
the distribution of funds by program or activity under this
account:
[In thousands of dollars]
Amount
Academic Programs:
Fulbright Program.............................................114,000
Regional Scholars Program.......................................2,000
Foreign Study Grants for U.S. Undergraduates....................1,500
College and University Affiliations Program.....................1,000
Educational Advising and Student Services.......................3,200
English Language Programs.......................................2,600
Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowships..................................6,100
Edmund S. Muskie Fellowship Program...............................500
American Overseas Research Centers..............................2,280
South Pacific Exchanges...........................................500
Tibet Exchanges...................................................500
East Timor Exchanges..............................................500
Disability Exchange Clearinghouse.................................500
__________
Subtotal, Academic Programs.................................135,180
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
Professional and Cultural Programs:
International Visitor Program..................................46,500
Citizen Exchange Program.......................................15,000
Congress Bundestag Youth Exchange...............................2,857
Mike Mansfield Fellowship Program...............................2,200
Olympic/Paralympic Exchanges....................................1,000
Special Olympic Exchanges.........................................500
Youth Science Leadership Institute of the Americas................100
Irish Institute...................................................500
[[Page 24669]]
Montana International Business Exchange...........................100
University of Akron Global Business Exchange......................100
Interparliamentary Exchanges with Asia............................150
__________
Subtotal, Professional and Cultural Exchanges:...............69,007
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
North/South Center................................................1,400
Exchanges Support................................................26,000
==========
_______________________________________________________________________
Total.......................................................231,587
Deviations from this distribution of funds will be subject
to the normal reprogramming procedures under section 605 of
this Act. Significant carryover and recovered balances are
often available under this account, and the Department is
directed to submit a proposed spending plan for such
balances, subject to the regular reprogramming procedures. To
the extent such balances are available, the Department is
encouraged to give priority to providing additional support
for the Muskie Fellowship Program, and supporting the Central
European Executive Exchange Program and the Institute for
Representative Government.
The conference agreement includes only $500,000 in new
appropriations under this account for Muskie Fellowships for
graduate student exchanges with the former Soviet Union. In
addition to the amounts provided under this account for
nations of the former Soviet Union, the Department expects to
receive transfers from appropriations for Freedom Support Act
exchange programs. In fiscal year 2000, an additional
$93,000,000 was transferred to this account for exchanges
with the former Soviet Union, including $18,309,000 for
graduate student exchanges. A similar amount is expected to
be available for such exchanges in fiscal year 2001. In its
graduate exchange programs with the former Soviet Union, the
Department shall emphasize Masters in Business Administration
programs in such areas as marketing, distribution, and
finance.
Should balances become available, the Department is
expected to consider awarding a grant for the Central
European Executive Exchange Program. The Committees expect
that the proposal submitted for this project will include
participation from Central European countries in addition to
Hungary and the Czech Republic, and will contain a plan to
continue the project in future years without Federal
financial support.
The conference agreement includes, by reference, the
program guidance contained in both the House and Senate
reports.
REPRESENTATION ALLOWANCES
The conference agreement includes $6,499,000 for
Representation Allowances instead of $5,826,000 as proposed
in the House bill, and $6,773,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. The conference agreement does not include
language under this account allowing the Department to
collect and use reimbursement for services provided to the
press as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. This
language is instead included under the ``Diplomatic and
Consular Programs'' account.
PROTECTION OF FOREIGN MISSIONS AND OFFICIALS
The conference agreement includes $15,467,000 for
Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials, instead of
$8,067,000 as provided in the House bill and $10,490,000 as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. Of the amount
provided, $5,000,000 is designated for reimbursement to the
City of Seattle. Similar language was included in the Senate-
reported amendment under ``Diplomatic and Consular
Programs''. The House bill did not address this matter. The
direction included in the House and Senate reports regarding
the review of reimbursement claims is adopted by reference.
EMBASSY SECURITY, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE
The conference agreement includes $1,079,976,000 for this
account, instead of $1,064,976,000 as proposed in the House
bill and $782,004,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment.
The conference agreement does not include language proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment adding ``Centers for
Antiterrorism and Security Training'' to the allowable uses
of funding under this account. The House bill had no similar
language.
The conference agreement does not include a Senate
provision stating that certain proceeds of sales shall be
available only for a new embassy facility in the Republic of
Korea. Proceeds realized from the sale of the diplomatic
facility in Seoul known as ``Compound II'' shall only be
available for the site acquisition and preparation, design,
or construction of diplomatic facilities, housing, or Marine
security guard quarters in the Republic of Korea. These funds
shall be available for obligation and expenditure until all
proceeds from the sale of ``Compound II'' are exhausted. The
Committees expect the Department to provide an update every
January 1 on construction projects in the Republic of Korea.
The conference agreement includes $663,000,000 for the
costs of worldwide security upgrades, including $515,000,000
for capital security projects. The conferees direct the
Department to comply with the direction in the House report
regarding the submission of a spending plan within sixty days
of the date of enactment of this Act. In proposing such a
spending plan, the Department shall include an assessment of
need, and such funding as is appropriate, for security
upgrades related to existing housing, schools, and Marine
quarters, as well as the acquisition of new secure Marine
quarters.
The conference agreement does not include new
appropriations for non-security capital projects. The
Department has indicated that $30,500,000 is available from
previous appropriations and proceeds to pay all anticipated
site acquisition and related costs of the new Beijing
chancery project in fiscal year 2001. The conference
agreement includes, by reference, the direction in the Senate
report regarding the Beijing chancery project. The ongoing
costs of housing projects in Chengdu and Shenyang are
included in amounts provided for facilities rehabilitation
under this account.
The budget request included planned expenditures of
$67,000,000 from proceeds of sale of surplus property for
opportunity purchases and capital projects. The conference
agreement anticipates that the amount of funds available for
such purchases will be much greater, and directs the
Department to submit a spending plan for these funds that
includes: at least $19,000,000 for opportunity purchases to
replace uneconomical leases; at least $25,000,000 for capital
security projects; and $20,000,000 for continuing costs of
the Taiwan project. Any additional use of these funds is
subject to reprogramming.
The conference agreement includes, by reference, language
in the House report under ``Worldwide Security Upgrades'' and
``Responding to the Recommendations of the Overseas Presence
Advisory Panel'', and language in the Senate report on joint
ventures and a General Accounting Office review of a property
issue in Paris. Within the amount provided under this
account, the Department is expected to support the
rehabilitation projects in Moscow and Istanbul described in
the Senate report.
The Department is directed to submit, and receive approval
for, a financial plan for the funding provided under this
account, whether from direct appropriations or proceeds of
sales, prior to the obligation or expenditure of funds for
capital and rehabilitation projects. The overall spending
plan shall include project-level detail, and shall be
provided to the Appropriations Committees not later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act. Any deviation
from the plan after approval shall be treated as a
reprogramming in the case of an addition greater than
$500,000 or as a notification in the case of a deletion, a
project cost overrun exceeding 25 percent, or a project
schedule delay exceeding 6 months. Notification requirements
also extend to the rebaselining of a given project's cost
estimate, schedule, or scope of work.
EMERGENCIES IN THE DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICE
The conference agreement includes $5,477,000 for the
Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service account,
as provided in the House bill, instead of $11,000,000, as
provided in the Senate-reported amendment.
REPATRIATION LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The conference agreement includes a total appropriation of
$1,195,000 for the Repatriation Loans Program account as
provided in the House bill, instead of $1,200,000 as provided
in the Senate-reported amendment.
PAYMENT TO THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE IN TAIWAN
The conference agreement includes $16,345,000 for the
Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan account, as
provided in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment. The conference agreement includes, by reference,
language in both the House and Senate reports. Funding for
the relocation of the Institute is discussed under the
``Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance'' account.
PAYMENT TO THE FOREIGN SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND
The conference agreement includes $131,224,000 for the
Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund
account, as provided in both the House bill and the Senate-
reported amendment.
International Organizations and Conferences
CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
The conference agreement includes $870,833,000 for
Contributions to International Organizations to pay the costs
assessed to the United States for membership in international
organizations, instead of $880,505,000 as proposed in the
House bill, and $943,944,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment.
The conference agreement includes language requiring that
$100,000,000 may be made available to the United Nations only
pursuant to a certification that the U.N. has taken no action
during calendar year 2000 prior to the enactment of this Act
to cause the U.N. to exceed the adopted budget for the
[[Page 24670]]
biennium 2000-2001. Similar language was included in the
House bill. The Senate-reported amendment did not include a
provision on this matter.
The conference agreement does not include an additional
$64,800,000 for the United States share of the new North
Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment. The House bill did not have a
similar provision. Within the amount provided under this
heading, $8,000,000 is included for the first incremental
payment for the U.S. share of the new headquarters building,
as requested.
The amount provided by the conference agreement is expected
to be sufficient to fully pay assessments to international
organizations. The conference agreement anticipates that the
Department has prepaid $32,600,000 of the fiscal year 2001
assessment for the United Nations regular budget, using
excess fiscal year 2000 funds. In addition, the Department's
recalculation of its fiscal year 2001 request for this
account has resulted in a lowering of the request by an
additional $37,908,000, resulting primarily from exchange
rate fluctuations. In recognition of the prepayment and the
recalculation of the request, the conference agreement
assumes an adjusted request level of $875,552,000. The
conference agreement does not include requested funding for
the Interparliamentary Union and the Bureau of International
Expositions, and anticipates additional savings related to
requested programs that are terminating or have not yet
begun.
Provisions in the House report relating to reports on
reforms in international organizations, and Senate report
language relating to reporting on War Crimes Tribunals are
adopted by reference. The conference agreement does not
include an additional $13,000,000, as proposed in the Senate
report, for Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) disease
prevention and control programs. The Department is encouraged
to pursue appropriate funding for such an initiative in the
future. The conference agreement adopts, by reference,
language in the House report concerning PAHO, and directs the
Department to provide PAHO with its full United States
assessment level for fiscal year 2001.
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES
The conference agreement provides $846,000,000 for
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities,
instead of $500,000,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment and $498,100,000 as proposed in the House bill.
The conference agreement provides that, of the total
funding provided under this heading, not to exceed fifteen
percent shall remain available until September 30, 2002. The
Senate-reported amendment made all funding available until
expended, and the House bill had no provision on the matter.
The conferees expect that before any excess funding is
carried over into fiscal year 2002 in this account, the
Department shall transfer the maximum allowable amount to the
Contributions to International Organizations account to
prepay the fiscal year 2002 assessment for the United Nations
regular budget.
The conference agreement includes, by reference, language
in the House report requiring a Department report to the
Committees related to the costs of continuing UN activities
in Angola and Haiti from the UN regular budget, requiring a
report on peacekeeping assessment rate reform, and directing
the Department to support the work of the UN Office of
Internal Oversight Services. The conference agreement also
includes, by reference, language in the Senate report
regarding the investigation of charges against those
responsible for the planning and execution of the air war
over Serbia and Kosovo.
The establishment of several large and complex missions
over the past year has overtaken the capacity of the UN to
successfully plan and manage such activities. The Department
is directed to allocate available funds in this account on a
priority basis, and to take no action to extend or expand
missions or create new missions for which funding is not
available. The conference agreement does not include funding
for the MINURSO mission in Western Sahara. In addition to the
notification requirements under this account, the Department
is directed to submit a proposed distribution of the total
resources available under this account no later than December
31, 2000, through the normal reprogramming process.
ARREARAGE PAYMENTS
The conference agreement does not include funding for
arrearage payments in this Act. The Senate-reported amendment
provided $102,000,000 for additional arrearage payments above
the $926,000,000 authorized and appropriated in previous
years, subject to certain conditions. The House bill did not
include new funding for arrearage payments.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $7,142,000 for Salaries
and Expenses of the International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC) as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of $19,470,000 as proposed in the House
bill. The conference agreement includes, by reference,
language in the House report regarding the South Bay
International Wastewater Treatment Plant.
CONSTRUCTION
The conference agreement includes $22,950,000 for the
Construction account of the IBWC instead of $26,747,000 as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment and $6,415,000 as
proposed in the House bill. The conference agreement provides
funding for the following activities: facilities renovation--
$425,000; heavy equipment replacement--$1,000,000; land
mobile radio systems replacement--$500,000; hydrologic data
collection system rehabilitation--$500,000; Rio Grande
construction--$2,685,000; Colorado River construction--
$805,000; a feasibility study for the construction of a
diversionary structure to control sewage flows in the flood
control channel of the Tijuana River--$500,000; and
operations and maintenance--$16,535,000. The conference
agreement adopts, by reference, language in the House report
regarding the reallocation of funds subject to reprogramming.
The conferees also expect the Commission to submit to the
Committees, not later than November 15, 2001, an end-of-year
report on operations and maintenance spending. This report
shall include actual obligations, and balances carried
forward, by project.
AMERICAN SECTIONS, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS
The conference agreement includes $6,741,000 for the U.S.
share of expenses of the International Boundary Commission;
the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada;
and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission, as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment, instead of
$5,710,000 as proposed in the House bill. The conference
level will provide funding at the following levels for the
three commissions: International Boundary Commission--
$970,000; International Joint Commission--$3,771,000; and
Border Environment Cooperation Commission--$2,000,000.
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSIONS
The conference agreement includes $19,392,000 for the U.S.
share of the expenses of the International Fisheries
Commissions and related activities, as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment, instead of $15,485,000 as proposed
in the House bill.
The conference agreement includes the funding distribution
requested in the President's budget and adopts, by reference,
language in the Senate report on treating Lake Champlain with
lampricide, and giving priority to States providing matching
funds.
Other
PAYMENT TO THE ASIA FOUNDATION
The conference agreement includes $9,250,000 for the
Payment to the Asia Foundation account, instead of $8,216,000
as provided in the House bill, and instead of no funding as
provided in the Senate-reported amendment. The conferees
support the work of the Asia Foundation on democracy and the
rule of law in the Asia-Pacific region. Since the
establishment of multi-party democracy in 1990, Nepal
continues to struggle with political instability, weak legal
institutions and economic stagnation. Increased funding in
this account is expected to allow the Foundation to expand
law reform activities in Nepal.
EISENHOWER EXCHANGE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM TRUST FUND
The conference agreement includes language as provided in
both the House bill and the Senate-reported amendment
allowing all interest and earnings accruing to the Trust Fund
in fiscal year 2001 to be used for necessary expenses of the
Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships.
ISRAELI ARAB SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
The conference agreement includes language as provided in
both the House bill and the Senate-reported amendment
allowing all interest and earnings accruing to the
Scholarship Fund in fiscal year 2001 to be used for necessary
expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship Program.
EAST-WEST CENTER
The conference agreement includes $13,500,000 for
operations of the East-West Center as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment, instead of no funds as proposed in the
House bill. The conference agreement does not include an
additional earmark of $12,500,000 from the Department of
State, Diplomatic and Consular Programs account, as proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment.
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY
The conference agreement includes $30,999,000 for the
National Endowment for Democracy as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment, instead of $30,872,000 as proposed in the
House bill. The Endowment shall submit to the Committees, not
later than February 1, 2001, a detailed program plan for NED
activities in East Timor, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
RELATED AGENCY
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING OPERATIONS
The conference agreement includes $398,971,000 for
International Broadcasting
[[Page 24671]]
Operations, instead of $419,777,000 as proposed in the House
bill and $388,421,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. Rather than funding broadcasting to Cuba under
this account, as proposed by the House, all funding for
broadcasting to Cuba is included under a separate account, as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment, and as enacted in
previous years.
The conference agreement includes language in this and
other broadcasting accounts that modifies citations of
authorization legislation as carried in previous years. These
changes are intended to simplify and streamline bill
language, and are not intended to modify the authorities for
the use of funds under any account.
The conference agreement includes, by reference, language
in the House report on the review of television-related
programs, Radio Free Asia, further consolidation and
streamlining within international broadcasting, and
reprogramming requirements. The conference agreement also
includes, by reference, language in the Senate report on the
VOA charter requirements, and on the initiation of RFE/RL
broadcasting in Avar, Chechen and Circassian.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is expected to
devote a proportionate and reasonable share of total VOA
programming to the charter requirements of explaining
American foreign policy and explaining American values,
institutions, and thought. Should the BBG determine that
organizational changes would facilitate the achievement of
this goal, such proposed changes shall be submitted to the
Committees through the regular reprogramming process.
The conference agreement provides inflationary adjustments
to base funding levels for all broadcasting entities. Within
the amount provided, $1,000,000 shall be for Uighur language
broadcasting by Radio Free Asia. The BBG is directed to
provide an allocation plan for all available funding under
this account to the Committees within sixty days from the
enactment of this Act.
BROADCASTING TO CUBA
The conference agreement includes $22,095,000, to remain
available until expended, for Broadcasting to Cuba under a
separate account as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of $22,806,000 within the total for
International Broadcasting Operations as proposed in the
House bill. The conference agreement does not include
language proposed in the Senate-reported amendment, providing
that funds may be used for aircraft to house television
broadcasting equipment. The House bill did not contain a
provision on this matter.
BROADCASTING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
The conference agreement includes $20,358,000 for the
Broadcasting Capital Improvements account, instead of
$18,358,000 as proposed in the House bill, and $31,075,000 as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. The conference
agreement does not include language proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment making a specific amount under this
account available for the costs of overseas security
upgrades.
The conference agreement includes, by reference, language
in the House report on digital development and conversion,
security upgrades, relocation of the Poro Point medium wave
transmitter, and the submission of a spending plan through
the reprogramming process. The conference agreement also
includes, by reference, language in the Senate report on the
notification of the Committees prior to the release of funds
for security upgrades.
The BBG may propose through the reprogramming process to
allocate funds under this account for rotatable antennas, or
for other infrastructure improvements at the Greenville, NC,
transmitting station, as discussed in the Senate report.
General Provisions--Department of State and Related Agency
Section 401.--The conference agreement includes section
401, as proposed in the House bill, permitting use of funds
for allowances, differentials, and transportation. The
Senate-reported amendment included a similar provision with
minor technical differences related to the citation of
authorizing provisions.
Sec. 402.--The conference agreement includes section 402,
as provided in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, dealing with transfer authority.
Sec. 403.--The conference agreement includes section 403,
proposed as section 404 in both the House bill and the
Senate-reported amendment, prohibiting the use of funds by
the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of
Governors (BBG) to provide certain types of assistance to the
Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation (PBC). The conference
agreement does not include training that supports accurate
and responsible broadcasting among the types of assistance
prohibited. The conferees agree that neither the Department
of State, nor the BBG, shall provide any assistance to the
PBC that could support restrictions of press freedoms or the
broadcasting of inaccurate, inflammatory messages. The
conferees further expect the Department and the BBG to submit
a report to the Committees, before December 15, 2000,
detailing any programs or activities involving the PBC in
fiscal year 2000, and any plans for such programs in fiscal
year 2001.
Sec. 404.--The conference agreement includes section 404,
proposed as section 405 in the House bill, creating the
position of Deputy Secretary of State for Management and
Resources. The Senate-reported amendment did not include a
provision on this matter. The conference agreement adopts, by
reference, the guidance on this matter provided in the House
report under the ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs''
account.
Sec. 405.--The conference agreement includes section 405,
as proposed in the Senate bill, prohibiting the use of funds
made available in this Act by the United Nations for
activities authorizing the United Nations or any of its
specialized agencies or affiliated organizations to tax any
aspect of the Internet.
Sec. 406.--The conference agreement includes section 406,
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment as section 409,
prohibiting the use of funds in this or any other Act to
allow entry of diamonds into the United States if they were
mined in certain countries, unless certain documentation is
provided. The House bill did not include a provision on this
matter.
Sec. 407.--The conference agreement includes section 407,
not included in either the House bill or the Senate-reported
amendment, extending authorities to provide protective
services to departing and incoming Secretaries of State.
Sec. 408.--The conference agreement includes section 408,
not included in either the House bill or the Senate-reported
amendment, waiving provisions of existing legislation that
require authorizations to be in place for the State
Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors prior to
the expenditure of any appropriated funds.
TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM
The conference agreement includes $98,700,000 for the
Maritime Security Program as proposed in both the House bill
and the Senate-reported amendment.
OPERATIONS AND TRAINING
The conference agreement includes $86,910,000 for the
Maritime Administration Operations and Training account
instead of $84,799,000 as proposed in the House bill and
$80,240,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
Within this amount, $47,236,000 shall be for the operation
and maintenance of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy,
including $13,000,000 above base funding levels for further
deferred maintenance and renovation requirements as described
in the House report. The conferees adopt, by reference,
language in the House report regarding the submission of a
spending plan for this initiative.
The conference agreement includes $7,473,000 for the State
Maritime Academies. Within the amount for State Maritime
Academies, $1,200,000 shall be for student incentive
payments, the same amount as provided in fiscal year 2000.
The conference agreement also includes, by reference,
language in the House report on submission of a report on
maritime education and training.
MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The conference agreement provides $30,000,000 in subsidy
appropriations for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program
instead of $10,621,000 as proposed in the House bill and
$20,221,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. The
conference agreement adopts the Senate approach of dropping a
limitation on the loan program level of not to exceed
$1,000,000,000. The House bill included this provision, which
has also been carried in previous years. MARAD shall not make
commitments exceeding $1,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001,
including commitments made with appropriations from previous
fiscal years, without prior notification to the Committees in
accordance with section 605 reprogramming procedures.
The conference agreement also includes an additional
$3,987,000 for administrative expenses associated with the
Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program instead of $3,795,000 as
proposed in the House bill, and $4,179,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment. The amount for administrative
expenses may be transferred to and merged with amounts under
the MARAD Operations and Training account.
MARAD has indicated to the Committees that it expects to
carry over approximately $10,000,000 in this account which
may be used as additional subsidy budget authority in fiscal
year 2001.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
The conference agreement includes provisions, as proposed
in both the House bill and the Senate-reported amendment,
involving Government property controlled by MARAD, the
accounting for certain funds received by MARAD, and a
prohibition on obligations from the MARAD construction fund.
Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement provides $490,000 for the
Commission for the Preservation of
[[Page 24672]]
America's Heritage Abroad, as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of $390,000 as proposed in the House bill.
Commission on Civil Rights
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $8,900,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights as
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment, instead of
$8,866,000 as proposed in the House bill.
The conference agreement includes language allowing the
Chairperson to be reimbursed for 125 billable days, as
proposed in the House bill, and as carried in previous years.
The Senate-reported amendment included language limiting all
commissioners to not more than 75 billable days.
Commission on Ocean Policy
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $1,000,000 for the
Commission on Ocean Policy as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of no funding as proposed in the House
bill.
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $1,370,000 for the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe as proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment, instead of $1,182,000 as
proposed in the House bill.
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $500,000 for the
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic
of China. Neither the House bill nor the Senate-reported
amendment included funding for this new Commission.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $303,864,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, instead of $290,928,000 as proposed in the House
bill, and $294,800,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment.
Within the total amount, the conference agreement includes
$30,000,000 for payments to State and local Fair Employment
Practices Agencies (FEPAs) for specific services to the
Commission, instead of $29,000,000 as proposed in the House
bill, and $31,000,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. The conference agreement includes, by reference,
language in the House report regarding submission of a
spending plan, reducing the backlog of private sector
charges, and utilizing the experience the FEPAs have in
mediation as the Commission implements its alternative
dispute resolution programs.
Federal Communications Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes a total of $230,000,000
for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), instead of $207,909,000 as provided in the
House bill, and $237,188,000 as proposed in the Senate-
reported amendment. Of the amounts provided, $200,146,000 is
to be derived from offsetting fee collections, as provided in
both the House bill and the Senate-reported amendment,
resulting in a net direct appropriation of $29,854,000,
instead of $7,763,000 included in the House bill, and
$37,042,000 included in the Senate-reported amendment.
Receipts in excess of $200,146,000 shall remain available
until expended but shall not be available for obligation
until October 1, 2001.
The conference agreement directs the Commission to submit,
no later than December 15, 2000, a financial plan proposing a
distribution of all the funds in this account, subject to the
reprogramming requirements under section 605 of this Act.
From within the funds provided, the FCC is urged to support
public safety, emergency preparedness and telecommunications
functions of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games.
The Senate report included language on public broadcasting
stations' access to spectrum. The House included no similar
language. The FCC is examining this issue, which is also
pending in the Court of Appeals. The conference agreement
reflects the belief that this issue can be resolved through
the administrative or judicial process, so no legislative
action is required at this time. The Chairman of the FCC
should report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on any action the Commission takes on this
issue by April 1, 2001.
The FCC shall take all actions necessary to complete the
processing of applications for licenses or other
authorizations for facilities that would provide services
covered by the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act (Public
Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501), specifically to deliver multi-
channel video services including all local broadcast
television station signals and broadband services in unserved
and underserved local television markets by November 29,
2000, as required by Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501.
The Senate report language with respect to a broadcast
industry code of conduct for the content of programming is
incorporated by reference.
Federal Maritime Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $15,500,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission,
instead of $14,097,000 as proposed in the House bill and
$16,222,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment.
Federal Trade Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes a total operating level
of $147,154,000 for the Federal Trade Commission, instead of
$134,807,000 as proposed in the House bill and $159,500,000
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. The conference
agreement assumes that, of the amount provided, $145,254,000
will be derived from fees collected in fiscal year 2001 and
$1,900,000 will be derived from estimated unobligated fee
collections available from fiscal year 2000. These actions
result in a final appropriation of $0. Any use of remaining
unobligated fee collections from prior years are subject to
the reprogramming requirements outlined in section 605 of
this Act.
The conference agreement adopts by reference the Senate
report language on slotting allowances, identity theft and
Internet fraud.
Appropriations for both the Antitrust Division of the
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are
financed with Hart-Scott-Rodino Act pre-merger filing fees.
Section 630 of this Act modifies the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act to
establish a three-tiered fee structure that increases the
filing threshold for a merger transaction from $15,000,000 to
$50,000,000. Both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment included in the Federal Trade Commission's
appropriation language similar language to create a three
tiered fee structure and raise the filing threshold to
$35,000,000. It is anticipated that the increase in the
filing threshold will reduce the number of mergers requiring
review by approximately 50 percent. This should allow the
Commission to focus more resources on the review of complex
mergers and non-merger activities such as consumer
protection.
Legal Services Corporation
PAYMENT TO THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
The conference agreement includes $330,000,000 for the
payment to the Legal Services Corporation, instead of
$300,000,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment,
and $275,000,000 as proposed in the House bill. The
conference agreement provides $310,000,000 for grants to
basic field programs and independent audits, $10,800,000 for
management and administration, $2,200,000 for the Office of
Inspector General, and $7,000,000 for client self-help and
information technology. The conference agreement also
includes $31,625,000 for civil legal assistance under the
Violence Against Woman Act programs funded under Title I of
this Act. In addition, according to LSC-released statistics,
grantees received over $605,000,000 of funding during 1999.
Within the amounts provided for management and
administration, the Corporation is expected to hire at least
seven investigators for the Compliance and Enforcement
Division to investigate field grantees' compliance with the
regulations grantees agreed to abide by when accepting
Federal funding.
The conference agreement adopts by reference the House
report language on class action suits and the Senate report
language on travel.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
The conference agreement includes language to continue the
terms and conditions included under this section in the
fiscal year 2000 Act, as proposed in both the House bill and
the Senate-reported amendment.
Marine Mammal Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $1,700,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission, as
proposed in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment.
Securities and Exchange Commission
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement includes $422,800,000 for the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), instead of
$392,624,000 as proposed in the House bill and $489,652,000
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. The conference
agreement includes bill language appropriating separate
amounts from offsetting fee collections from fiscal years
1999 and 2001, as proposed in both the House bill and the
Senate-reported amendment. The conference agreement
appropriates $295,000,000 from fees collected in fiscal year
1999, and $127,800,000 from fees to be collected in fiscal
year 2001.
The conference agreement provides for the Commission's
adjustments to base and requested program increases for
additional staff, information systems, and a special pay
rate. Within the increased funding provided for information
systems, the Commission shall identify $2,000,000 for
additional information systems support to help investigate
and prosecute Internet fraud cases, as described in the
Senate report. The conference
[[Page 24673]]
agreement does not include language in Title VI of this Act,
nor additional funding above the request under this heading,
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment, for the
exemption of the SEC from Federal pay regulations.
Any offsetting fee collections in fiscal year 2001 in
excess of $127,800,000 will remain available for the
Securities and Exchange Commission in future years through
the regular appropriations process.
The conference agreement includes, by reference, language
in the Senate report on the Office of Economic Analysis, the
implementation of a new fee collection system,
recommendations for increased civil penalties, and the need
to educate investors regarding Internet securities fraud.
Small Business Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement provides an appropriation of
$331,635,000 for the Small Business Administration (SBA)
Salaries and Expenses account, instead of $304,094,000 as
proposed in the House bill and $143,475,000 as proposed in
the Senate-reported amendment. The conference agreement does
not split funding for non-credit business assistance programs
into a separate account, as proposed in the budget request
and the Senate-reported amendment, but rather includes
funding for such programs under this account.
In addition, the conference agreement includes $37,000,000
for programs related to the New Markets Venture Capital
Program subject to the authorization of that program,
including $7,000,000 for BusinessLINC and $30,000,000 for
technical assistance.
The conference agreement includes language, as proposed in
the Senate-reported amendment, allowing SBA to use five
percent, or not to exceed $3,000,000, of increased
collections of delinquent non-tax debt to reimburse for
qualified expenses of such collections. The House bill did
not contain language on this matter.
In addition to amounts made available under this heading,
the conference agreement includes $129,000,000 for
administrative expenses under the Business Loans Program
account. This amount is transferred to and merged with
amounts available under Salaries and Expenses. The conference
agreement also includes an additional $108,354,000 for
administrative expenses under the Disaster Loans Program
account, which may under certain conditions be transferred to
and merged with amounts available under Salaries and
Expenses. These conditions are described under the Disaster
Loans Program account.
The conference agreement provides a total of $166,541,000
for SBA's regular operating expenses under this account. This
amount includes $2,000,000 for expenses of the HUBZone
program, and $8,000,000 for systems modernization initiatives
to continue the improvement of SBA's management and oversight
of its loan portfolio. This amount also includes $2,000,000
to assist the SBA in transforming its workforce to meet
changes in the way its programs are carried out. The SBA
shall submit a plan, prior to the expenditure of resources
provided for systems modernization and workforce
transformation, in accordance with section 605 of this Act.
The conference agreement includes the following amounts for
non-credit programs:
Small Business Development Centers..........................$88,000,000
7(j) Technical Assistance.....................................3,600,000
Microloan Technical Assistance...............................20,000,000
SCORE.........................................................3,750,000
Business Information Centers....................................500,000
Women's Business Centers.....................................12,000,000
Survey of Women-Owned Businesses................................694,000
National Women's Business Council...............................750,000
One Stop Capital Shops........................................3,100,000
US Export Assistance Centers..................................3,100,000
Advocacy Research.............................................1,100,000
National Veterans Business Development Corp...................4,000,000
SBIR Rural Outreach Program...................................5,000,000
ProNet..........................................................500,000
Drug-free Workplace Grants....................................3,500,000
PRIME........................................................15,000,000
New Markets Technical Assistance.............................30,000,000
BusinessLINC..................................................7,000,000
Regulatory Fairness Boards......................................500,000
________________
Total...................................................202,094,000
Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs).--Of the amounts
provided for SBDCs, the conference agreement includes
$2,000,000 to continue the SBDC Defense transition program,
and $1,000,000 to continue the Environmental Compliance
Project, as directed in the House report. In addition, the
conference agreement includes language, similar to that
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment under ``Non-Credit
Business Assistance Programs'' making funds for the SBDC
program available for two years.
National Veterans Business Development Corporation.--The
conference agreement includes language, as proposed in the
House bill, designating $4,000,000 for the National Veterans
Business Development Corporation. The Senate-reported
amendment did not include a provision on this matter, but
Senate report language designated $4,000,000 for the same
purpose.
Microloan Technical Assistance.--The conference agreement
includes $20,000,000 for the Microloan Technical Assistance
program. Should savings occur during fiscal year 2001 in this
account, the SBA may propose to allocate an additional amount
for the Microloan Technical Assistance program through the
regular reprogramming process. The SBA was unable to obligate
approximately $3,500,000 allocated to this program in fiscal
year 2000, which was transferred to the Business Loans
Program account.
The conference agreement adopts language included in the
House report directing the SBA to fully fund LowDoc
Processing Centers, and to continue activities assisting
small businesses to adapt to a paperless procurement
environment.
NON-CREDIT BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The conference agreement adopts the approach in the House
bill of not including funding under a separate heading for
the non-credit business assistance programs of the SBA.
Instead, funding for these programs is included under
``Salaries and Expenses'', as in previous years. The Senate-
reported amendment included $153,690,000 for such programs
under this separate account.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
The conference agreement provides $11,953,000 for the SBA
Office of Inspector General, instead of $10,905,000 as
proposed in the House bill and $13,000,000 as proposed in the
Senate-reported amendment.
An additional $500,000 has been provided under the
administrative expenses of the Disaster Loans Program account
to be made available to the Office of Inspector General for
work associated with oversight of the Disaster Loans Program.
The conference agreement does not include direction provided
in the Senate report.
BUSINESS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The conference agreement includes $294,410,000 under the
SBA Business Loans Program Account, instead of $269,300,000
as proposed in the House bill, and $296,200,000 as proposed
in the Senate-reported amendment. The conference agreement
includes language, as proposed in the House bill, making
$45,000,000 of the amount included for guaranteed loans
available for two fiscal years. The Senate-reported amendment
did not contain a similar provision. Within the amount
provided, $22,000,000 shall be available only for the New
Markets Venture Capital Program, subject to the enactment of
authorizing legislation in fiscal year 2001.
The conference agreement includes $2,250,000 for the costs
of direct loans, instead of $2,500,000 as proposed in the
House bill and $2,600,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. The conferees understand that $300,000 in
carryover is available for the Microloan Direct Loan Program,
and, together with the appropriated amount, will support an
estimated fiscal year 2001 program level of over $28,400,000.
Not including the funding provided for the New Markets
Venture Capital Program, the conference agreement includes
$141,160,000 for the costs of guaranteed loans, including the
following programs:
7(a) General Business Loans.--The conference agreement
provides $114,960,000 in subsidy appropriations for the 7(a)
general business guaranteed loan program, instead of
$114,500,000 as proposed in the House bill and $134,000,000
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment. When combined
with an estimated $14,000,000 in available carryover balances
and recoveries, this amount will subsidize an estimated
fiscal year 2001 program level of up to $10,400,000,000,
assuming a subsidy rate of 1.24%. In addition, the conference
agreement includes a provision, as proposed in both the House
bill and the Senate-reported amendment, requiring the SBA to
notify the Committees in accordance with section 605 of this
Act prior to providing a total program level greater than
$10,000,000,000.
Small Business Investment Companies (SBIC).--The conference
agreement provides $26,200,000 for the SBIC participating
securities program as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of $23,300,000 as proposed in the House
bill. This amount will result in an estimated total program
level of $2,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. No appropriation
is required for the SBIC debentures program, as the program
will operate with a zero subsidy rate in fiscal year 2001.
The conference agreement includes required language, as
proposed in the House bill, limiting the 504 CDC and the SBIC
debentures program levels, instead of similar language in the
Senate-reported amendment.
In addition, the conference agreement includes $129,000,000
for administrative expenses to carry out the direct and
guaranteed loan programs as proposed in the House bill,
instead of $130,800,000 as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, and makes such funds available to be transferred
to and merged with appropriations for Salaries and Expenses.
DISASTER LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The conference agreement includes a total of $184,494,000
for this account, of which
[[Page 24674]]
$76,140,000 is for the subsidy costs for disaster loans and
$108,354,000 is for administrative expenses associated with
the disaster loans program. The House bill proposed
$140,400,000 for loans and $136,000,000 for administrative
expenses. The Senate-reported amendment provided $142,100,000
for loans and $139,000,000 for administrative expenses.
For disaster loans, the conference agreement assumes that
the $76,140,000 subsidy appropriation, when combined with
$71,000,000 in carryover balances and $10,000,000 in
recoveries, will provide a total disaster loan program level
of $900,000,000.
The conference agreement includes language, as proposed in
the House bill, designating amounts for direct and indirect
administrative expenses, and allowing appropriations for
indirect administrative costs to be transferred to and merged
with appropriations for Salaries and Expenses under certain
conditions. The conference agreement includes $98,000,000 for
direct administrative expenses instead of $125,646,000 as
proposed in the House bill, and $9,854,000 for indirect
administrative expenses as proposed in the House bill. The
amount provided for direct administrative expenses, when
combined with an estimated $26,000,000 in carryover balances,
will provide the requested level for this activity. The
conference agreement includes a provision that any amount in
excess of $9,854,000 to be transferred to Salaries and
Expenses from the Disaster Loans Program account for indirect
administrative expenses shall be treated as a reprogramming
of funds under section 605 of this Act, as proposed in the
House bill. In addition, any such reprogramming shall be
accompanied by a report from the Administrator on the
anticipated effect of the proposed transfer on the ability of
the SBA to cover the full annual requirements for direct
administrative costs of disaster loan-making and -servicing.
Of the amounts provided for administrative expenses under
this heading, $500,000 is to be transferred to and merged
with the Office of Inspector General account for oversight
and audit activities related to the Disaster Loans program.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION--SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
The conference agreement includes a provision providing SBA
with the authority to transfer funds between appropriations
accounts as proposed in the House bill, instead of a similar
provision in the Senate-reported amendment.
State Justice Institute
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The conference agreement provides $6,850,000 for the State
Justice Institute as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment, instead of $4,500,000 as proposed in the House
bill. The conference agreement does not include the transfer
of an additional $8,000,000 to this account from the Courts
of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
account in Title III as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment.
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The conference agreement includes the following general
provisions:
Sec. 601.--The conference agreement includes section 601,
identical in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, regarding the use of appropriations for publicity
or propaganda purposes.
Sec. 602.--The conference agreement includes section 602,
identical in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, regarding the availability of appropriations for
obligation beyond the current fiscal year.
Sec. 603.--The conference agreement includes section 603,
identical in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, regarding the use of funds for consulting
services.
Sec. 604.--The conference agreement includes section 604,
as proposed in the House bill, providing that should any
provision of the Act be held to be invalid, the remainder of
the Act would not be affected. The Senate-reported amendment
did not include this provision, which has been carried in
previous years.
Sec. 605.--The conference agreement includes section 605,
as included in the Senate-reported amendment, establishing
the policy by which funding available to the agencies funded
under this Act may be reprogrammed for other purposes,
instead of the version in the House bill which contained
minor differences.
Sec. 606.--The conference agreement includes section 606,
identical in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, regarding the construction, repair or modification
of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration vessels in
overseas shipyards.
Sec. 607.--The conference agreement includes section 607,
as proposed in the House bill, regarding the purchase of
American-made products. The Senate-reported amendment did not
include this provision, which has been carried in previous
years.
Sec. 608.--The conference agreement includes section 608,
identical in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, which prohibits funds in the bill from being used
to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission similar to proposed
guidelines covering harassment based on religion published by
the EEOC in October, 1993.
Sec. 609.--The conference agreement includes section 609,
as proposed in the House bill, prohibiting the use of funds
for any United Nations peacekeeping mission that involves
U.S. Armed Forces under the command or operational control of
a foreign national, unless the President certifies that the
involvement is in the national security interest. The Senate-
reported amendment did not contain a provision on this
matter.
Sec. 610.--The conference agreement includes section 610,
identical to the House bill and section 609 in the Senate-
reported amendment, that prohibits use of funds to expand the
U.S. diplomatic presence in Vietnam beyond the level in
effect on July 11, 1995, unless the President makes a
certification that several conditions have been met regarding
Vietnam's cooperation with the United States on POW/MIA
issues.
Sec. 611.--The conference agreement includes section 611,
as proposed in the House bill, which prohibits the use of
funds to provide certain amenities for Federal prisoners. The
Senate-reported amendment included a similar provision as
section 612, but proposed to make the prohibition permanent.
Sec. 612.--The conference agreement includes section 612,
as proposed in the House bill, restricting the use of funds
provided under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration for fleet modernization activities. The
Senate-reported amendment did not contain a provision on this
matter.
Sec. 613.--The conference agreement includes section 613,
identical in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, which requires agencies and departments funded in
this Act to absorb any necessary costs related to downsizing
or consolidations within the amounts provided to the agency
or department.
Sec. 614.--The conference agreement includes section 614,
as proposed in the Senate-reported amendment, which
permanently prohibits funds made available to the Federal
Bureau of Prisons from being used to make available any
commercially published information or material that is
sexually explicit or features nudity to a prisoner. The House
bill included a similar provision as section 614, but did not
propose to make the prohibition permanent.
Sec. 615.--The conference agreement includes section 615,
as proposed in the House bill, which limits funding under the
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant to 90 percent to an entity
that does not provide public safety officers injured in the
line of duty, and as a result separated or retired from their
jobs, with health insurance benefits equal to the insurance
they received while on duty. The Senate-reported amendment
did not include a similar provision.
Sec. 616.--The conference agreement includes section 616,
as proposed in the House bill, which prohibits funds provided
in this Act from being used to promote the sale or export of
tobacco or tobacco products, or to seek the reduction or
removal of foreign restrictions on the marketing of tobacco
products, provided such restrictions are applied equally to
all tobacco or tobacco products of the same type. This
provision is not intended to impact routine international
trade services provided to all U.S. citizens, including the
processing of applications to establish foreign trade zones.
The Senate-reported amendment did not contain a provision on
this matter.
Sec. 617.--The conference agreement includes section 617,
modified from language proposed as section 615 in the Senate-
reported amendment, which extends the prohibition in last
year's bill on use of funds to issue a visa to any alien
involved in extrajudicial and political killings in Haiti.
The provision also adds eight individuals to the list of
victims, and extends the exemption and reporting requirements
from last year's provision. The House bill did not contain a
provision on this matter.
Sec. 618.--The conference agreement includes section 618,
identical, but proposed as section 617 in the House bill and
section 616 in the Senate-reported amendment, which prohibits
a user fee from being charged for background checks conducted
pursuant to the Brady Handgun Control Act of 1993, and
prohibits implementation of a background check system which
does not require or result in destruction of certain
information.
Sec. 619.--The conference agreement includes section 619,
modified from language proposed as section 618 in the House
bill and section 619 in the Senate-reported amendment, which
delays obligation of any receipts deposited or available in
the Crime Victims Fund in excess of $537,500,000 until the
following fiscal year. The conferees have taken this action
to protect against wide fluctuations in receipts into the
Fund, and to ensure that a stable level of funding will
remain available for these programs in future years.
Sec. 620.--The conference agreement includes section 620,
proposed as section 619 in the House bill, which prohibits
the use of Department of Justice funds for programs which
discriminate against, denigrate, or otherwise undermine the
religious beliefs of students participating in such programs.
The Senate-reported amendment did not contain a provision on
this matter.
[[Page 24675]]
Sec. 621.--The conference agreement includes section 621,
identical in both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment, but proposed as section 620 in the House bill,
which prohibits the use of funds to process visas for
citizens of countries that the Attorney General has
determined deny or delay accepting the return of deported
citizens.
Sec. 622.--The conference agreement includes section 622,
proposed as section 621 in the House bill, which prohibits
the use of Department of Justice funds to transport a maximum
or high security prisoner to any facility other than to a
facility certified by the Bureau of Prisons as appropriately
secure to house such a prisoner. The Senate-reported
amendment did not contain a similar provision.
Sec. 623.--The conference agreement includes section 623,
modified from language proposed as section 622 in the House
bill, regarding the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. The
Senate-reported amendment did not include a provision on this
matter. The conference agreement does not adopt the report
language contained in the House report.
Sec. 624.--The conference agreement includes section 624,
modified from language proposed as section 623 in the House
bill, which prohibits funds from being used for the
participation of United States delegates to the Standing
Consultative Commission unless the President submits a
certification that the U.S. Government is not implementing a
1997 memorandum of understanding regarding the 1972 Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.,
or the Senate ratifies the memorandum of understanding. The
Senate-reported amendment did not include a provision on this
matter.
Sec. 625.--The conference agreement includes section 625,
proposed as section 624 in the House bill, which prohibits
the use of funds for the State Department to approve the
purchase of property in Arlington, Virginia, by the Xinhua
News Agency. The Senate-reported amendment did not include a
provision on this matter.
Sec. 626.--The conference agreement includes section 626,
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment as section 623,
amending existing law related to certain medical costs to
apply to suspects in the custody of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The House bill did not include a provision on
this matter.
Sec. 627.--The conference agreement includes section 627,
proposed in the Senate-reported amendment as section 624,
amending a fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations
provision to permanently extend the time period in which
certain takings of Cook Inlet Beluga Whales would be
considered violations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The House bill did not include a provision on this matter.
Sec. 628.--The conference agreement includes section 628,
modified from language proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment as section 625, amending Public Law 106-113 to
extend the authorization for Pacific Salmon Treaty and
Recovery efforts. The House bill did not include a provision
on these matters.
Sec. 629.--The conference agreement includes a new section
629, to clarify the Interstate Horseracing Act regarding
certain pari-mutuel wagers.
Sec. 630.--The conference agreement includes a new section
630, which modifies existing law to include a three-tiered
Hart-Scott-Rodino fee structure that increases the filing
threshold for a merger transaction from $15,000,000 to
$50,000,000. Similar language was included under the
``Federal Trade Commission, Salaries and Expenses'' heading
in Title V of both the House bill and the Senate-reported
amendment.
Sec. 631.--The conference agreement includes a new section
631, authorizing the stabilization and renovation of a
certain lock and dam.
Sec. 632.--The conference agreement includes a new section
632, requiring the Federal Communications Commission to take
certain actions regarding Low-Power FM regulations.
Sec. 633.--The conference agreement includes a new section
633, providing additional amounts for the Small Business
Administration, Salaries and Expenses account for a number of
small business initiatives.
Sec. 634.--The conference agreement includes a new section
634, prohibiting the use of funds in this, or any previous
Act, or hereinafter made available to the Department of
Commerce, to allow fishing vessels to use aircraft to assist
in the fishing of Atlantic bluefin tuna.
Sec. 635.--The conference agreement includes section 635,
amending 42 U.S.C. 1301 to prohibit certain misuses of social
security numbers. The House bill did not include a provision
on this matter.
Sec. 636.--The conference agreement includes a new section
636, related to designation of the Cuyahoga Valley National
Park pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 7470-7479.
TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
DRUG DIVERSION CONTROL FEE ACCOUNT
(RESCISSION)
The conference agreement includes a rescission of
$8,000,000 from the amounts otherwise available for
obligation in fiscal year 2001 for the ``Drug Diversion
Control Fee Account'', as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment. The House bill did not include a rescission from
this account.
RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
MARITIME GUARANTEED LOAN (TITLE XI) PROGRAM ACCOUNT
(RESCISSION)
The conference agreement includes a rescission of
$7,644,000 from unobligated balances under this heading, as
proposed in the House bill. The Senate-reported amendment did
not include a rescission from this account.
The conference agreement does not include a title providing
contingent emergency funds for a ``Southwest Border
Initiative'' for certain Department of Justice and Federal
Judiciary accounts, as proposed in the Senate-reported
amendment.
These needs are instead addressed in the regular accounts
for such programs in Title I and Title III of this Act.
TITLE VIII--DEBT REDUCTION
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Bureau of the Public Debt
Gifts to the United States for Reduction of the Public Debt
The conference agreement includes a new title depositing an
additional amount in fiscal year 2001 into the account
established under 31 U.S.C. section 3113(d), to reduce the
public debt.
TITLE IX--WILDLIFE, OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSERVATION
Sec. 901-902.--The conference agreement includes
$50,000,000 for formula grants to the States for wildlife
conservation and restoration programs. Funding is provided
through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department
of Interior. This amount is in addition to funds provided for
new, competitively awarded and cost-shared wildlife programs
in the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations Act. This action
recognizes wildlife conservation as a critical component of a
nationwide strategy and supports state efforts in wildlife
conservation and restoration. The conference agreement
includes authorization language for this program.
Funding has been provided for the development, revision,
and implementation of wildlife conservation and restoration
programs and plans to address the unmet needs for a diverse
array of wildlife and associated habitats. Funds provided to
states or Indian Tribes may be used for planning and
implementation of wildlife conservation programs and
conservation strategies, including wildlife conservation,
wildlife conservation education, and wildlife-associated
recreation projects, for new programs and projects as well as
to enhance existing programs and projects.
Each state's apportionment is determined by formula which
considers the total area of the state (1/3 of the formula)
and the population (2/3 of the formula). No state will
receive an amount that is less than one percent of the amount
available or more than five percent for any fiscal year.
Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia each receive a sum
equal to not more than one-half of one percent and Guam, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana
Islands each receive a sum equal to not more than one-fourth
of one percent. The conference agreement requires States and
other jurisdiction to have or agree to develop a wildlife
conservation strategy and plan as a condition for receiving a
federal grant under this program.
Sec. 903.--The conference agreement includes language
authorizing a coastal impact assistance program for fiscal
year 2001.
TITLE X
The conference agreement includes a new title X to
authorize loan guarantees in order to facilitate access to
local television broadcast signals in unserved and
underserved areas, and for other purposes.
TITLE XI
The conference agreement includes a new title XI, the Legal
Immigration Family Equity Act.
conference total--with comparisons
The total new budget (obligational) authority for the
fiscal year 2001 recommended by the Committee of Conference,
with comparisons to the fiscal year 2000 amount, the 2001
budget estimates, and the House and Senate bills for 2001
follow:
(In thousands of dollars)
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2000.......$39,600,967
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal year50,932,968
House bill, fiscal year 2001.................................37,394,617
Senate bill, fiscal year 2001................................36,689,955
Conference agreement, fiscal year 2001.......................39,868,390
Conference agreement compared with:
New budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2000........+267,423
Budget estimates of new (obligational) authority, fiscal y-11,064,578
[[Page 24676]]
House bill, fiscal year 2001...............................+2,473,773
Senate bill, fiscal year 2001..............................+3,178,435
Ernest J. Istook, Jr.
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Todd Tiahrt,
Robert B. Aderholt,
Jo Ann Emerson,
John E. Sununu,
C.W. Bill Young,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Jon Kyl,
Ted Stevens,
Richard J. Durbin,
Daniel K. Inouye,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 4 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
____________________
{time} 0832
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) at 8 o'clock and 32
minutes a.m.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND
THE RULES
Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-1006) on the resolution (H. Res. 651) providing
for the consideration of motions to suspend the rules, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 2614, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF
2000
Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-1007) on the resolution (H. Res. 652) waiving
points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 2614) to amend the Small Business Investment Act to make
improvements to the certified development company program, and for
other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to
be printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 4942, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 106-1008) on the resolution (H. Res. 653) waiving
points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 4942) making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar
and ordered to be printed.
____________________
CORRECTION TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 AT
PAGE H10718
The following bill was inadvertently printed in the wrong version and
appears below in the correct version as passed by the House.
____________________
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
Mr. HANSEN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 1482) to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and
for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 1482
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 Marine Sanctuaries
Amendments Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment or repeal to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the National Marine Sanctuaries
Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).
SEC. 3. CHANGES IN FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICIES;
ESTABLISHMENT OF SYSTEM.
(a) Clerical Amendment.--The heading for section 301 (16
U.S.C. 1431) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 301. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICIES; ESTABLISHMENT
OF SYSTEM.''.
(b) Findings.--Section 301(a) (16 U.S.C. 1431(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``research, educational,
or esthetic'' and inserting ``scientific, educational,
cultural, archeological, or esthetic'';
(2) in paragraph (3) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon;
and
(3) by striking paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) and inserting
the following:
``(4) a Federal program which establishes areas of the
marine environment which have special conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical, cultural,
archeological, scientific, educational, or esthetic qualities
as national marine sanctuaries managed as the National Marine
Sanctuary System will--
``(A) improve the conservation, understanding, management,
and wise and sustainable use of marine resources;
``(B) enhance public awareness, understanding, and
appreciation of the marine environment; and
``(C) maintain for future generations the habitat, and
ecological services, of the natural assemblage of living
resources that inhabit these areas.''.
(c) Purposes and Policies.--Section 301(b) (16 U.S.C.
1431(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``significance;'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``significance and to manage these areas as the
National Marine Sanctuary System;'';
(2) by striking paragraphs (3), (4), and (9);
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (8) as
paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively;
(4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) to maintain the natural biological communities in the
national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and, where
appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats,
populations, and ecological processes;
``(4) to enhance public awareness, understanding,
appreciation, and wise and sustainable use of the marine
environment, and the natural, historical, cultural, and
archeological resources of the National Marine Sanctuary
System;
``(5) to support, promote, and coordinate scientific
research on, and long-term monitoring of, the resources of
these marine areas;'';
(5) in paragraph (8), as redesignated, by striking
``areas;'' and inserting ``areas, including the application
of innovative management techniques; and''; and
(6) in paragraph (9), as redesignated, by striking ``;
and'' and inserting a period.
(d) Establishment of System.--Section 301 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Establishment of System.--There is established the
National Marine Sanctuary System, which shall consist of
national marine sanctuaries designated by the Secretary in
accordance with this title.''.
SEC. 4. CHANGES IN DEFINITIONS.
(a) Damages.--Paragraph (6) of section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1432)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (B); and
(2) by adding after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) the cost of curation and conservation of
archeological, historical, and cultural sanctuary resources;
and
``(E) the cost of enforcement actions undertaken by the
Secretary in response to the destruction or loss of, or
injury to, a sanctuary resource;''.
(b) Response Costs.--Paragraph (7) of such section is
amended by inserting ``, including costs related to seizure,
forfeiture, storage, or disposal arising from liability under
section 312'' after ``injury'' the second place it appears.
(c) Sanctuary Resource.--Paragraph (8) of such section is
amended by striking ``research, educational,'' and inserting
``educational, cultural, archeological, scientific,''.
(d) System.--Such section is further amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (8);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and
inserting ``; and''; and
[[Page 24677]]
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) `System' means the National Marine Sanctuary System
established by section 301.''.
SEC. 5. CHANGES RELATING TO SANCTUARY DESIGNATION STANDARDS.
(a) Standards.--Section 303(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1433(a)(1)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) determines that--
``(A) the designation will fulfill the purposes and
policies of this title;
``(B) the area is of special national significance due to--
``(i) its conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, educational,
or esthetic qualities;
``(ii) the communities of living marine resources it
harbors; or
``(iii) its resource or human-use values;
``(C) existing State and Federal authorities are inadequate
or should be supplemented to ensure coordinated and
comprehensive conservation and management of the area,
including resource protection, scientific research, and
public education;
``(D) designation of the area as a national marine
sanctuary will facilitate the objectives in subparagraph (C);
and
``(E) the area is of a size and nature that will permit
comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management;
and''.
(b) Factors; Repeal of Report Requirement.--Section 303(b)
(16 U.S.C. 1433(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (I) and inserting a semicolon, and by adding at
the end the following:
``(J) the area's scientific value and value for monitoring
the resources and natural processes that occur there;
``(K) the feasibility, where appropriate, of employing
innovative management approaches to protect sanctuary
resources or to manage compatible uses; and
``(L) the value of the area as an addition to the
System.''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3).
SEC. 6. CHANGES IN PROCEDURES FOR SANCTUARY DESIGNATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) Submission of Notice of Proposed Designation to
Congress.--Section 304(a)(1)(C) (16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(1)(C)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(C) no later than the day on which the notice required
under subparagraph (A) is submitted to Office of the Federal
Register, the Secretary shall submit a copy of that notice
and the draft sanctuary designation documents prepared
pursuant to section 304(a)(2), including an executive
summary, to the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, and the Governor of each State
in which any part of the proposed sanctuary would be
located.''.
(b) Sanctuary Designation.--Section 304(a)(2) (16 U.S.C.
1434(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Sanctuary designation documents.--The Secretary shall
prepare and make available to the public sanctuary
designation documents on the proposal that include the
following:
``(A) A draft environmental impact statement pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.).
``(B) A resource assessment that documents--
``(i) present and potential uses of the area, including
commercial and recreational fishing, research and education,
minerals and energy development, subsistence uses, and other
commercial, governmental, or recreational uses;
``(ii) after consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, any commercial, governmental, or recreational
resource uses in the areas that are subject to the primary
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; and
``(iii) information prepared in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, on any
past, present, or proposed future disposal or discharge of
materials in the vicinity of the proposed sanctuary.
Public disclosure by the Secretary of such information shall
be consistent with national security regulations.
``(C) A draft management plan for the proposed national
marine sanctuary that includes the following:
``(i) The terms of the proposed designation.
``(ii) Proposed mechanisms to coordinate existing
regulatory and management authorities within the area.
``(iii) The proposed goals and objectives, management
responsibilities, resource studies, and appropriate
strategies for managing sanctuary resources of the proposed
sanctuary, including interpretation and education, innovative
management strategies, research, monitoring and assessment,
resource protection, restoration, enforcement, and
surveillance activities.
``(iv) An evaluation of the advantages of cooperative State
and Federal management if all or part of the proposed
sanctuary is within the territorial limits of any State or is
superjacent to the subsoil and seabed within the seaward
boundary of a State, as that boundary is established under
the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.).
``(v) An estimate of the annual cost to the Federal
Government of the proposed designation, including costs of
personnel, equipment and facilities, enforcement, research,
and public education.
``(vi) The proposed regulations referred to in paragraph
(1)(A).
``(D) Maps depicting the boundaries of the proposed
sanctuary.
``(E) The basis for the findings made under section 303(a)
with respect to the area.
``(F) An assessment of the considerations under section
303(b)(1).''.
(c) Withdrawal of Designation.--Section 304(b)(2) (16
U.S.C. 1434(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``or System''
after ``sanctuary'' the second place it appears.
(d) Federal Agency Actions Affecting Sanctuary Resources.--
Section 304(d) (16 U.S.C.1434(d)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(4) Failure to follow alternative.--If the head of a
Federal agency takes an action other than an alternative
recommended by the Secretary and such action results in the
destruction of, loss of, or injury to a sanctuary resource,
the head of the agency shall promptly prevent and mitigate
further damage and restore or replace the sanctuary resource
in a manner approved by the Secretary.''.
(e) Evaluation of Progress in Implementing Management
Strategies.--Section 304(e) (16 U.S.C. 1434(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``management techniques,'' and inserting
``management techniques and strategies,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``This review shall
include a prioritization of management objectives.''.
(f) Limitation on Designation of New Sanctuaries.--Section
304 (16 U.S.C. 1434) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Limitation on Designation of New Sanctuaries.--
``(1) Finding required.--The Secretary may not publish in
the Federal Register any sanctuary designation notice or
regulations proposing to designate a new sanctuary, unless
the Secretary has published a finding that--
``(A) the addition of a new sanctuary will not have a
negative impact on the System; and
``(B) sufficient resources were available in the fiscal
year in which the finding is made to--
``(i) effectively implement sanctuary management plans for
each sanctuary in the System; and
``(ii) complete site characterization studies and inventory
known sanctuary resources, including cultural resources, for
each sanctuary in the System within 10 years after the date
that the finding is made if the resources available for those
activities are maintained at the same level for each fiscal
year in that 10 year period.
``(2) Deadline.--If the Secretary does not submit the
findings required by paragraph (1) before February 1, 2004,
the Secretary shall submit to the Congress before October 1,
2004, a finding with respect to whether the requirements of
paragraph (2) have been met by all existing sanctuaries.
``(3) Limitation on application.--Paragraph (1) does not
apply to any sanctuary designation documents for--
``(A) a Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary; or
``(B) a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine
Sanctuary.''.
(g) Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Reserve.--
(1) Presidential designation.--The President, after
consultation with the Governor of the State of Hawaii, may
designate any Northwestern Hawaiian Islands coral reef or
coral reef ecosystem as a coral reef reserve to be managed by
the Secretary of Commerce.
(2) Secretarial action.--Upon the designation of a reserve
under paragraph (1) by the President, the Secretary shall--
(A) take action to initiate the designation of the reserve
as a National Marine Sanctuary under sections 303 and 304 of
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1433);
(B) establish a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Reserve
Advisory Council under section 315 of that Act (16 U.S.C.
1445a), the membership of which shall include at least 1
representative from Native Hawaiian groups; and
(C) until the reserve is designated as a National Marine
Sanctuary, manage the reserve in a manner consistent with the
purposes and policies of that Act.
(3) Public comment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no closure areas around the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands shall become permanent without adequate review and
comment.
(4) Coordination.--The Secretary shall work with other
Federal agencies and the Director of the National Science
Foundation, to develop a coordinated plan to make vessels and
other resources available for conservation or research
activities for the reserve.
(5) Review.--If the Secretary has not designated a national
marine sanctuary in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands under
sections 303 and 304 of the National Marine
[[Page 24678]]
Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1433, 1434) before October 1,
2005, the Secretary shall conduct a review of the management
of the reserve under section 304(e) of that Act (16 U.S.C.
1434(e)).
(6) Report.--No later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the House of Representatives Committee on Resources,
describing actions taken to implement this subsection,
including costs of monitoring, enforcing, and addressing
marine debris, and the extent to which the fiscal or other
resources necessary to carry out this subsection are
reflected in the Budget of the United States Government
submitted by the President under section 1104 of title 31,
United States Code.
(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce to carry out
the provisions of this subsection such sums, not exceeding
$4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
and 2005, as are reported under paragraph (6) to be reflected
in the Budget of the United States Government.
SEC. 7. CHANGES IN ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED.
Section 306 (16 U.S.C. 1436) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting
``for any person'' after ``unlawful'';
(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``offer for sale,
purchase, import, export,'' after ``sell,''; and
(3) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) interfere with the enforcement of this title by--
``(A) refusing to permit any officer authorized to enforce
this title to board a vessel, other than a vessel operated by
the Department of Defense or United States Coast Guard,
subject to such person's control for the purposes of
conducting any search or inspection in connection with the
enforcement of this title;
``(B) resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating,
harassing, bribing, interfering with, or forcibly assaulting
any person authorized by the Secretary to implement this
title or any such authorized officer in the conduct of any
search or inspection performed under this title; or
``(C) knowingly and willfully submitting false information
to the Secretary or any officer authorized to enforce this
title in connection with any search or inspection conducted
under this title; or''.
SEC. 8. CHANGES IN ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
(a) Powers of Authorized Officers To Arrest.--Section
307(b) (16 U.S.C. 1437(b)) is amended by striking ``and''
after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (4), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting ``;
and'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(6) arrest any person, if there is reasonable cause to
believe that such person has committed an act prohibited by
section 306(3).''.
(b) Criminal Offenses.--Section 307 (16 U.S.C. 1437) is
amended by redesignating subsections (c) through (j) in order
as subsections (d) through (k), and by inserting after
subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Criminal Offenses.--
``(1) Offenses.--A person is guilty of an offense under
this subsection if the person commits any act prohibited by
section 306(3).
``(2) Punishment.--Any person that is guilty of an offense
under this subsection--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), shall be
fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not
more than 6 months, or both; or
``(B) in the case of a person who in the commission of such
an offense uses a dangerous weapon, engages in conduct that
causes bodily injury to any person authorized to enforce this
title or any person authorized to implement the provisions of
this title, or places any such person in fear of imminent
bodily injury, shall be fined under title 18, United States
Code, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.''.
(c) Subpoenas of Electronic Files.--Subsection (g) of
section 307 (16 U.S.C. 1437), as redesignated by this
section, is amended by inserting ``electronic files,'' after
``books,''.
(d) Nationwide Service of Process.--Section 307 (16 U.S.C.
1437) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(l) Nationwide Service of Process.--In any action by the
United States under this title, process may be served in any
district where the defendant is found, resides, transacts
business, or has appointed an agent for the service of
process.''.
SEC. 9. ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS AUTHORITY.
Section 308 (16 U.S.C. 1439) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 308. REGULATIONS.
``The Secretary may issue such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out this title.''.
SEC. 10. CHANGES IN RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EDUCATION
PROVISIONS.
Section 309 (16 U.S.C. 1440) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 309. RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EDUCATION.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct, support, or
coordinate research, monitoring, evaluation, and education
programs consistent with subsections (b) and (c) and the
purposes and policies of this title.
``(b) Research and Monitoring.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may--
``(A) support, promote, and coordinate research on, and
long-term monitoring of, sanctuary resources and natural
processes that occur in national marine sanctuaries,
including exploration, mapping, and environmental and
socioeconomic assessment;
``(B) develop and test methods to enhance degraded habitats
or restore damaged, injured, or lost sanctuary resources; and
``(C) support, promote, and coordinate research on, and the
conservation, curation, and public display of, the cultural,
archeological, and historical resources of national marine
sanctuaries.
``(2) Availability of results.--The results of research and
monitoring conducted, supported, or permitted by the
Secretary under this subsection shall be made available to
the public.
``(c) Education.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may support, promote, and
coordinate efforts to enhance public awareness,
understanding, and appreciation of national marine
sanctuaries and the System. Efforts supported, promoted, or
coordinated under this subsection must emphasize the
conservation goals and sustainable public uses of national
marine sanctuaries and the System.
``(2) Educational activities.--Activities under this
subsection may include education of the general public,
teachers, students, national marine sanctuary users, and
ocean and coastal resource managers.
``(d) Interpretive Facilities.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may develop interpretive
facilities near any national marine sanctuary.
``(2) Facility requirement.--Any facility developed under
this subsection must emphasize the conservation goals and
sustainable public uses of national marine sanctuaries by
providing the public with information about the conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical, cultural,
archeological, scientific, educational, or esthetic qualities
of the national marine sanctuary.
``(e) Consultation and Coordination.--In conducting,
supporting, and coordinating research, monitoring,
evaluation, and education programs under subsection (a) and
developing interpretive facilities under subsection (d), the
Secretary may consult or coordinate with Federal, interstate,
or regional agencies, States or local governments.''.
SEC. 11. CHANGES IN SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROVISIONS.
Section 310 (16 U.S.C. 1441) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (f) as
subsections (c) through (g), and by inserting after
subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Public Notice Required.--The Secretary shall provide
appropriate public notice before identifying any category of
activity subject to a special use permit under subsection
(a).'';
(2) by striking ``insurance'' in paragraph (4) of
subsection (c), as redesignated, and inserting ``insurance,
or post an equivalent bond,'';
(3) by striking ``resource and a reasonable return to the
United States Government.'' in paragraph (2)(C) of subsection
(d), as redesignated, and inserting ``resource.'';
(4) in subsection (d)(3)(B), as redesignated, by striking
``designating and''; and
(5) in subsection (d), as redesignated, by inserting after
paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Waiver or reduction of fees.--The Secretary may
accept in-kind contributions in lieu of a fee under paragraph
(2)(C), or waive or reduce any fee assessed under this
subsection for any activity that does not derive profit from
the access to or use of sanctuary resources.''.
SEC. 12. CHANGES IN COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS PROVISIONS.
(a) Agreements and Grants.--Section 311(a) (16 U.S.C.
1442(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Agreements and Grants.--The Secretary may enter into
cooperative agreements, contracts, or other agreements with,
or make grants to, States, local governments, regional
agencies, interstate agencies, or other persons to carry out
the purposes and policies of this title.''.
(b) Use of Resources From Other Government Agencies.--
Section 311 (16 U.S.C. 1442) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(e) Use of Resources of Other Government Agencies.--The
Secretary may, whenever appropriate, enter into an agreement
with a State or other Federal agency to use the personnel,
services, or facilities of such agency on a reimbursable or
nonreimbursable basis, to assist in carrying out the purposes
and policies of this title.
``(f) Authority To Obtain Grants.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law that prohibits a Federal agency from
receiving assistance, the Secretary may apply for, accept,
and use grants from other Federal agencies, States, local
governments, regional agencies, interstate agencies,
foundations, or other persons, to carry out the purposes and
policies of this title.''.
SEC. 13. CHANGES IN PROVISIONS CONCERNING DESTRUCTION, LOSS,
OR INJURY.
(a) Venue for Civil Actions.--Section 312(c) (16 U.S.C.
1443(c)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first sentence;
[[Page 24679]]
(2) in paragraph (1) (as so designated) in the first
sentence by striking ``in the United States district court
for the appropriate district''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) An action under this subsection may be brought in the
United States district court for any district in which--
``(A) the defendant is located, resides, or is doing
business, in the case of an action against a person;
``(B) the vessel is located, in the case of an action
against a vessel; or
``(C) the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a sanctuary
resource occurred.''.
(b) Use of Recovered Amounts.--Section 312(d) (16 U.S.C.
1443(d)) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and
inserting the following:
``(1) Response costs.--Amounts recovered by the United
States for costs of response actions and damage assessments
under this section shall be used, as the Secretary considers
appropriate--
``(A) to reimburse the Secretary or any other Federal or
State agency that conducted those activities; and
``(B) after reimbursement of such costs, to restore,
replace, or acquire the equivalent of any sanctuary resource.
``(2) Other amounts.--All other amounts recovered shall be
used, in order of priority--
``(A) to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the
sanctuary resources that were the subject of the action,
including for costs of monitoring and the costs of curation
and conservation of archeological, historical, and cultural
sanctuary resources;
``(B) to restore degraded sanctuary resources of the
national marine sanctuary that was the subject of the action,
giving priority to sanctuary resources and habitats that are
comparable to the sanctuary resources that were the subject
of the action; and
``(C) to restore degraded sanctuary resources of other
national marine sanctuaries.''.
(c) Statute of Limitations.--Section 312 (16 U.S.C. 1443)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Statute of Limitations.--An action for response costs
or damages under subsection (c) shall be barred unless the
complaint is filed within 3 years after the date on which the
Secretary completes a damage assessment and restoration plan
for the sanctuary resources to which the action relates.''.
SEC. 14. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 313 (16 U.S.C. 1444) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 313. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary--
``(1) to carry out this title--
``(A) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(B) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(C) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(D) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(E) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(2) for construction projects at national marine
sanctuaries, $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002,
2003, 2004, and 2005.''.
SEC. 15. CHANGES IN U.S.S. MONITOR PROVISIONS.
Section 314 (16 U.S.C. 1445) is amended by striking
subsection (b) and redesignating subsection (c) as subsection
(b).
SEC. 16. CHANGES IN ADVISORY COUNCIL PROVISIONS.
Section 315 (16 U.S.C. 1445a) is amended by striking
``provide assistance'' in subsection (a) and inserting
``advise and make recommendations''.
SEC. 17. CHANGES IN THE SUPPORT ENHANCEMENT PROVISIONS.
Section 316 (16 U.S.C. 1445b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``or the System''
after ``sanctuaries'';
(2) in subsection (a)(4) by striking ``use of any symbol
published under paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``manufacture,
reproduction, or other use of any symbol published under
paragraph (1), including the sale of items bearing such a
symbol,'';
(3) by amending subsection (e)(3) to read as follows:
``(3) to manufacture, reproduce, or otherwise use any
symbol adopted by the Secretary under subsection (a)(1),
including to sell any item bearing such a symbol, unless
authorized by the Secretary under subsection (a)(4) or
subsection (f); or''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Collaborations.--The Secretary may authorize the use
of a symbol adopted by the Secretary under subsection (a)(1)
by any person engaged in a collaborative effort with the
Secretary to carry out the purposes and policies of this
title and to benefit a national marine sanctuary or the
System.
``(g) Authorization for Non-profit Partner Organization To
Solicit Sponsors.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into an
agreement with a non-profit partner organization authorizing
it to assist in the administration of the sponsorship program
established under this section. Under an agreement entered
into under this paragraph, the Secretary may authorize the
non-profit partner organization to solicit persons to be
official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary system or
of individual national marine sanctuaries, upon such terms as
the Secretary deems reasonable and will contribute to the
successful administration of the sanctuary system. The
Secretary may also authorize the non-profit partner
organization to collect the statutory contribution from the
sponsor, and, subject to paragraph (2), transfer the
contribution to the Secretary.
``(2) Reimbursement for administrative costs.--Under the
agreement entered into under paragraph (1), the Secretary may
authorize the non-profit partner organization to retain not
more than 5 percent of the amount of monetary contributions
it receives from official sponsors under the agreement to
offset the administrative costs of the organization in
soliciting sponsors.
``(3) Partner organization defined.--In this subsection,
the term `partner organization' means an organization that--
``(A) draws its membership from individuals, private
organizations, corporation, academic institutions, or State
and local governments; and
``(B) is established to promote the understanding of,
education relating to, and the conservation of the resources
of a particular sanctuary or 2 or more related
sanctuaries.''.
SEC. 18. ESTABLISHMENT OF DR. NANCY FOSTER SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 317 the
following:
``SEC. 318. DR. NANCY FOSTER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and
administer through the National Ocean Service the Dr. Nancy
Foster Scholarship Program. Under the program, the Secretary
shall award graduate education scholarships in oceanography,
marine biology or maritime archeology, to be known as Dr.
Nancy Foster Scholarships.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Dr. Nancy Foster
Scholarship Program are--
``(1) to recognize outstanding scholarship in oceanography,
marine biology, or maritime archeology, particularly by women
and members of minority groups ; and
``(2) to encourage independent graduate level research in
oceanography, marine biology, or maritime archeology.
``(c) Award.--Each Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship--
``(1) shall be used to support graduate studies in
oceanography, marine biology, or maritime archeology at a
graduate level institution of higher education; and
``(2) shall be awarded in accordance with guidelines issued
by the Secretary.
``(d) Distribution of Funds.--The amount of each Dr. Nancy
Foster Scholarship shall be provided directly to a recipient
selected by the Secretary upon receipt of certification that
the recipient will adhere to a specific and detailed plan of
study and research approved by a graduate level institution
of higher education.
``(e) Funding.--Of the amount available each fiscal year to
carry out this title, the Secretary shall award 1 percent as
Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarships.
``(f) Scholarship Repayment Requirement.--The Secretary
shall require an individual receiving a scholarship under
this section to repay the full amount of the scholarship to
the Secretary if the Secretary determines that the
individual, in obtaining or using the scholarship, engaged in
fraudulent conduct or failed to comply with any term or
condition of the scholarship.
``(g) Maritime Archeology Defined.--In this section the
term `maritime archeology' includes the curation,
preservation, and display of maritime artifacts.''.
SEC. 19. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Correction of References to Former Committee.--The
following provisions are amended by striking ``Merchant
Marine and Fisheries'' and inserting ``Resources'':
(1) Section 303(b)(2)(A) (16 U.S.C. 1433(b)(2)(A)).
(2) Section 304(a)(6) (16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(6)).
(b) Correction of Reference to Renamed Act.--(1) Section
302(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) `Magnuson-Stevens Act' means the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.);''.
(2) Section 302(9) is amended by striking ``Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act'' and inserting
``Magnuson-Stevens Act''.
(3) Section 303(b)(2)(D) is amended by striking ``Magnuson
Act'' and inserting ``Magnuson-Stevens Act''.
(4) Section 304(a)(5) is amended by striking ``Magnuson
Act'' and inserting ``Magnuson-Stevens Act''.
(5) Section 315(b)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1445a(b)(2)) is amended by
striking ``Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act''
and inserting ``Magnuson-Stevens Act''.
(c) Miscellaneous.--Section 312(a)(1) (16 U.S.C.
1443(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``United States'' and
inserting ``united states''.
____________________
[[Page 24680]]
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. MEEKS of New York (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on
account of official business.
Ms. SLAUGHTER (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today after 2:30
p.m. on account of personal business.
Mr. STUPAK (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account of
district-related business.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Etheridge) to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Etheridge, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Davis of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Stenholm, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Hinojosa, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Sawyer, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Clayton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Kind, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Moore, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Hinchey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Payne, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Stabenow, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Sherman, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Canady of Florida) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Paul, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Smith of Michigan, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Foley, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Fowler, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Bliley, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Young of Alaska, for 5 minutes, October 26.
(The following Members (at their own request) to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Baca, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Packard, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Doolittle, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Millender-McDonald, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
SENATE BILLS, A JOINT RESOLUTION AND A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REFERRED
Bills, a joint resolution, and a concurrent resolution of the Senate
of the following titles were taken from the Speaker's table and, under
the rule, referred as follows:
S. 2811. An act to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act to make communities with high levels of out-
migration or population loss eligible for community
facilities grants; to the Committee on Agriculture.
S. 3164. An act to protect seniors from fraud, to the
Committee on the Judiciary, in addition to the Committee on
Commerce for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
S. 3194. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 431 North George Street in
Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Robert S. Walker Post
Office''; to the Committee on Government Reform.
S.J. Res. 36. Joint resolution recognizing the late Bernt
Balchen for his many contributions to the United States and a
lifetime of remarkable achievements on the centenary of his
birth, October 23, 1999; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
S. Con. Res. 155. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that the Government of the United States
should actively support the aspirations of the democratic
political forces in Peru toward an immediate and full
restoration of democracy in that country; to the Committee on
International Relations.
____________________
ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION SIGNED
Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
that committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills and a joint
resolution of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon
signed by the Speaker:
H.R. 468. An act to establish the Saint Helens Island
National Scenic Area.
H.R. 1725. An act to provide for the conveyance by the
Bureau of Land Management to Douglas County, Oregon, of a
county park and certain adjacent land.
H.R. 2442. An act to provide for the preparation of a
Government report detailing injustices suffered by Italian
Americans during World War II, and a formal acknowledgment of
such injustices by the President.
H.R. 3646. An act for the relief of certain Persian Gulf
evacuees.
H.R. 3657. An act to provide for the conveyance of a small
parcel of public domain land in the San Bernardino National
Forest in the State of California, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3679. An act to provide for the mining of
commemorative coins to support the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic
Winter Games and the programs of the United States Olympic
Committee.
H.R. 4315. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 3695 Green Road in
Beachwood, Ohio, as the ``Larry Small Post Office Building''.
H.R. 4450. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 900 East Fayette Street in
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Judge Harry Augustus Cole Post
Office Building''.
H.R. 4451. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1001 Frederick Road in
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Frederick L. Dewberry, Jr. Post
Office Building''.
H.R. 4625. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2108 East 38th Street in
Erie, Pennsylvania, as the ``Gertrude A. Barber Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 4786. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 110 Postal Way in
Carrollton, Georgia, as the ``Samuel P. Roberts Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 4811. An act making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 4831. An act to redesignate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2339 North California Avenue
in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Roberto Clemente Post
Office''.
H.R. 4853. An act to redesignate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1568 South Green Road in
South Euclid, Ohio, as the ``Arnold C. D'Amico Station''.
H.R. 5229. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 219 South Church Street in
Odum, Georgia, as the ``Ruth Harris Coleman Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 5273. An act to clarify the intention of the Congress
with regard to the authority of the United States Mint to
produce numismatic coins, and for other purposes.
H.J. Res. 115. Joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other
purposes.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The SPEAKER announced his signature to enrolled bills of the Senate
of the following titles:
S. 2812. An act to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide a waiver of the oath of renunciation and
allegiance for naturalization of aliens having certain
disabilities.
S. 3062. An act to modify the date on which the Mayor of
the District of Columbia submits a performance accountability
plan to Congress, and for other purposes.
____________________
BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
that committee did on the following dates present to the President, for
his approval, bills and a joint resolution of the House of the
following titles:
On October 19, 2000:
H.R. 2296. To amend the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin
Islands to provide that the number of members on the
legislature of the Virgin Islands and the number of such
members constituting a quorum shall be determined by the laws
of the Virgin Islands, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2348. To authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to
provide cost sharing for the endangered fish recovery
implementation programs for the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Basins.
H.R. 5212. To direct the American Folklife Center at the
Library of Congress to establish a program to collect video
and audio recordings of personal histories and testimonials
of American war veterans, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3244. To combat trafficking in persons, especially
into the sex trade, slavery, and involuntary servitude, to
reauthorize certain Federal programs to prevent violence
against women, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4635. Making appropriations for the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for
sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions,
corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
H.J. Res. 114. Making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes.
On October 20, 2000:
H.R. 4132. To authorize grants for water resources research
and technology institutes established under the Water
Resources Research Act of 1984.
[[Page 24681]]
H.R. 3069. To authorize the Administrator of General
Services to provide for redevelopment of the Southeast
Federal Center in the District of Columbia.
H.R. 1695. To provide for the conveyance of certain Federal
public lands in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada, to Clark County,
Nevada, for the development of an airport facility, and for
other purposes.
H.R. 2607. To promote the development of the commercial
space transportation industry, to authorize appropriations
for the Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial
Space Transportation, to authorize appropriations for the
Office of Space Commercialization, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4461. Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies program for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4850. To increase, effective as of December 1, 2000,
the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected
disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity
compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans.
H.R. 5164. To amend title 49, United States Code, to
require reports concerning defects in motor vehicles or tires
or other motor vehicle equipment in foreign countries, and
for other purposes.
On October 24, 2000:
H.R. 209. To improve the ability of Federal agencies to
license federally owned inventions.
H.R. 2961. To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
authorize a 3-year pilot program under which the Attorney
General may extend the period for voluntary departure in the
case of certain nonimmigrant aliens who require medical
treatment in the United States and were admitted under the
visa waiver pilot program, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3671. To amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration Act to enhance the funds available for grants to
States for fish and wildlife conservation projects, to
reauthorize and amend the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation Establishment Act, to commemorate the centennial
of the establishment of the first national wildlife refuge in
the United States on March 14, 1903, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4068. To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
extend for an additional 3 years the special immigrant
religious worker program.
H.R. 4110. To amend title 44, United States Code, to
authorize appropriations for the National Historical
Publications and Records Commission for fiscal years 2002
through 2005.
H.R. 4392. To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001
for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
United States Government, the Community Management Account,
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4320. To assist in the conservation of great apes by
supporting and providing financial resources for the
conservation programs of countries within the range of great
apes and projects of persons with demonstrated expertise in
the conservation of great apes.
H.R. 4835. To authorize the exchange of land between the
Secretary of the Interior and the Director of Central
Intelligence at the George Washington Memorial Parkway in
McLean, Virginia, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5234. To amend the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act
of 2000 to extend the applicability of that Act to certain
former spouses of deceased Hmong veterans.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 33 minutes
a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, October 26, 2000, at
10 a.m.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
[October 26, (legislative day of October 25), 2000]
Mr. ARMEY: Committee of Conference. Conference report on
H.R. 2614. A bill to amend the Small Business Investment Act
to make improvements to the certified development company
program, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-1004). Ordered to
be printed.
Mr. ISTOOK: Committee of Conference. Conference report on
H.R. 4942. A bill making appropriations for the government of
the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in
whole or in part against the revenues of said District for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes (Rept. 106-1005). Ordered to be printed.
Mr. REYNOLDS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 651.
Resolution providing for consideration of motions to suspend
the rules (Rept. 106-1006). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. LINDER: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 652.
Resolution waiving points of order against the conference
report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2614), to amend the Small
Business Investment Act to make improvements to the certified
development company program, and for other purposes (Rept.
106-1007). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. LINDER: Committee on Rules: House Resolution 653.
Resolution waiving points of order against the conference
report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4942), making
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia
and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-1008).
Referred to the House Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 5537. A bill to waive the period of Congressional
review of the Child in Need of Protection Amendment Act of
2000; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. TRAFICANT:
H.R. 5538. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to increase the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself and Ms. Baldwin):
H.R. 5539. A bill to extend for 9 additional months the
period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States
Code is reenacted; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 5540. A bill to extend for 11 additional months the
period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States
Code is reenacted; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 5541. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to make the Hope and Lifetime Learning Credits
refundable, and to allow taxpayers to obtain short-term
student loans by using the future refund of such credits as
collateral for the loans; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ARMEY:
H.R. 5542. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide tax relief; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, and in addition to the Committees on Education and the
Workforce, Banking and Financial Services, and the Budget,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Bliley, and Mr.
Bilirakis):
H.R. 5543. A bill to amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of
the Social Security Act to provide benefits improvements and
beneficiary protection in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs
and the State child health insurance program (SCHIP), as
revised by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Medicare,
Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means,
and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HYDE:
H.R. 5544. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to
promote pain management and palliative care without
permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to
the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. TALENT (for himself and Ms. Velazquez):
H.R. 5545. A bill to provide for reauthorization of small
business loan and other programs, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Small Business.
By Mr. ANDREWS (for himself, Mr. Clay, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Owens, Mr. Payne, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Ms. Woolsey,
Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Tierney, Mr.
Kind, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Ford, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr.
Holt):
H.R. 5546. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to improve the retirement security of American families;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ISTOOK:
H.R. 5547. A bill making appropriations for the government
of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable
in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations.
By Mr. ROGERS:
H.R. 5548. A bill making appropriations for the Departments
of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related
agencies for
[[Page 24682]]
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations.
By Mr. ANDREWS (for himself, Mr. Clay, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
Owens, Mr. Payne, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Ms. Woolsey,
Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Tierney, Mr.
Kind, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Ford, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr.
Holt):
H.R. 5549. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 to improve the retirement security of
American families; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed
Services, and Government Reform, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. COLLINS:
H.R. 5550. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
certain steam or other vapor generating boilers used in
nuclear facilities; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. DINGELL (for himself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Green of
Texas, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Stark, and
Mr. Conyers):
H.R. 5551. A bill to provide access to affordable health
care for all Americans; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. DOYLE (for himself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Filner, Mr.
Murtha, Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Holden, Mr. Borski, Mr.
Larson, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Coyne, Mr.
Klink, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Barcia, Ms. Brown of
Florida, and Ms. DeGette):
H.R. 5552. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
enhance outreach programs carried out by the Department of
Veterans Affairs to provide for more fully informing
surviving spouses and dependents of benefits available to
them under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, and to improve local assistance levels by providing
dedicated staff to assist surviving spouses and dependents in
obtaining benefits under those laws; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. ENGLISH:
H.R. 5553. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security
Act to establish, for purposes of disability determinations
under such title, a uniform minimum level of earnings, for
demonstrating ability to engage in substantial gainful
activity, at the level currently applicable solely to blind
individuals; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. McKeon:
H.R. 5554. A bill to amend the Congressional Award Act to
establish a Congressional Recognition for Excellence in Arts
Education Board; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California:
H.R. 5555. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain
projects in California for the use or reuse of reclaimed
water and for the design and construction of demonstration
and permanent facilities for that purpose, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. SANDLIN:
H.R. 5556. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to
reduce the waiting period for benefits under the Medicare
Program from two years to 18 months for individuals with
disabilities; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SANFORD:
H.R. 5557. A bill to amend the Fair Housing Act to modify
certain requirements for the design and construction of
certain multi-family housing; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. STARK:
H.R. 5558. A bill to change the name of Medicare's
Medicare+Choice Program to Medicare-No-Choice so as to
explain more accurately to beneficiaries what the program
means; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to
the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. WEINER:
H.R. 5559. A bill to require the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to establish a temporary bid cap on electric power
sold at wholesale in New York State; to the Committee on
Commerce.
H.R. 5560. A bill to amend the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 to extend energy assistance to
households headed by certain senior citizens; to the
Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. WOLF:
H.R. 5561. A bill to require foreign countries to meet
certain requirements relating to political freedom,
transparency, accountability, and good governance in order to
be eligible to receive cancellation or reduction of debt owed
to the United States; to the Committee on International
Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. OBEY:
H. Con. Res. 436. Concurrent resolution directing the Clerk
of the House of Representatives to make certain corrections
in the enrollment of H.R. 4811; to the Committee on the
Budget, and in addition to the Committee on House
Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. UNDERWOOD:
H. Con. Res. 437. Concurrent resolution to reaffirm the
commitment of the United States to help Guam achieve full
self-governance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mr. Packard, and Mr.
Hunter):
H. Res. 650. Resolution expressing the sense of the House
with respect to the release of findings and recommendations
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding the
electricity crisis in California; to the Committee on
Commerce.
By Mr. REYNOLDS:
H. Res. 651. Resolution providing for consideration of
motions to suspend the rules; House Calendar No. 320. House
Report No. 106-1006.
By Mr. LINDER:
H. Res. 652. Resolution waiving points of order against the
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2614), to amend
the Small Business Investment Act to make improvements to the
certified development company program, and for other
purposes; House Calendar No. 321. House Report No. 106-1007.
H. Res. 653. Resolution waiving points of order against the
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4942), making
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia
and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes; House Calendar
No. 322. House Report No. 106-1008.
By Mr. BACA (for himself, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Bishop, Ms.
Berkley, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Carson, Mrs.
Clayton, Mr. Condit, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Clyburn, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Doyle, Ms.
Eshoo, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Filner, Mr. Foley, Mr.
Gephardt, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Ford, Mr. Frost, Mr.
Gutierrez, Mr. Hill of Indiana, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lipinski, Mr.
Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. Matsui, Mr. McGovern, Mr.
Meeks of New York, Mr. Rush, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Ms.
Millender-McDonald, Mr. George Miller of California,
Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Mr. Towns, and Mr. Wynn):
H. Res. 654. Resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives regarding the contributions of Tiger Woods
and Tiger Woods Foundation; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 360: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 1366: Mr. Lampson.
H.R. 1732: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 2000: Mr. Hayworth.
H.R. 2166: Mr. Wu and Mr. Shaw.
H.R. 2344: Ms. Danner and Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 2620: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 2953: Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 3901: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 4007: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 4207: Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 4289: Mr. Hall of Ohio.
H.R. 4393: Mr. Foley.
H.R. 4527: Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Stupak, Ms.
Baldwin, and Mr. Farr of California.
H.R. 4560: Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 4669: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H.R. 4874: Mr. DeMint.
H.R. 4926: Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Wynn, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Rush, and
Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 4964: Mr. Upton.
H.R. 4971: Mr. Baird.
H.R. 5052: Mr. Traficant.
H.R. 5057: Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 5137: Mr. Stenholm and Mr. Smith of Texas.
H.R. 5147: Mr. Wamp and Mr. Blagojevich.
H.R. 5152: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 5163: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 5253: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 5259: Mr. Linder, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Tanner, Mr.
Kingston, and Mr. Lucas of Kentucky.
[[Page 24683]]
H.R. 5261: Mr. Doyle and Ms. Kilpatrick.
H.R. 5274: Mr. Rush, Mrs. Morella, and Mr. Duncan.
H.R. 5275: Mr. Luther.
H.R. 5338: Mrs. Roukema.
H.R. 5365: Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut.
H.R. 5397: Mr. Bentsen.
H.R. 5475: Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 5530: Mr. Shaw, Mrs. Morella, and Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland.
H. Con. Res. 337: Mr. Meehan, Mr. Riley, Mr. Royce, Mr.
Payne, and Mr. Hilliard.
H. Con. Res. 401: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H. Con. Res. 426: Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Hayworth.
H. Res. 146: Mr. Waxman.
H. Res. 461: Mr. Goodling and Ms. Waters.
H. Res. 537: Mr. Waxman, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr.
Hinchey, Mr. Baker, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, and Mrs. Fowler.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
October 25, 2000
[[Page 24684]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
DEANNA SAUCEDA DEPARTS KRQE
______
HON. TOM UDALL
of new mexico
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, one of the finest and most
respected news anchors in New Mexico, Deanna Sauceda, is departing KRQE
television of Albuquerque, New Mexico, after a distinguished career
with the news station for nearly 12 years. She has often been credited
with making a major contribution toward building KRQE's solid
reputation.
There are thousands of loyal KRQE watchers who have great faith in
what they see from the Channel 13 KRQE newscasts. They believe them to
be fair and thorough--providing news coverage that keeps them well
informed by separating fact from opinion. As the lead anchor for the
program, Deanna Sauceda insisted on good reporting, crisp writing,
visual stories, and accuracy in every thing covered in KRQE's news
reports.
I had the privilege of being interviewed by Deanna just over a week
ago. That opportunity was afforded because KRQE has committed to giving
all the candidates for federal office 5 minutes of free air time to
help constituents learn what the issues are and where candidates stand.
I applaud KRQE for providing this service and engaging its viewers in
our democracy. The professional that she is, during our interview
Deanna asked me some hard-hitting and engaging questions. While she was
tough, she also had a wonderful sense of humor and it was a lovely
dialogue.
I know that Deanna Sauceda will be missed for her judgment,
experience, toughness under pressure, and for her vast knowledge of the
people, places, and events that have made New Mexico over the last two
decades.
Deanna, I wish you the best of luck in your new endeavors.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE SOUTH BRONX OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ON
ITS 28TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. JOSE E. SERRANO
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I again pay tribute to the South Bronx
Overall Economic Development Corporation for its 28 years of fruitful
service to the South Bronx community.
In 1972, U.S. Senator Jacob Javits, New York State Attorney General
Robert Abrams, and six major banks joined together to establish the
South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation (SOBRO). The
corporation was founded at a time when the South Bronx was suffering
from major economic devastation, jobs were scarce, and people were
leaving the area.
Over the past 28 years, SOBRO has successfully encouraged investment
and economic growth in the South Bronx and has provided education and
job training to area residents. Among its many accomplishments, SOBRO
has trained or placed in jobs more than 20,000 residents, created or
retained more than 30,000 jobs in the area, stimulated more than $120
million in investments, and assisted in the reconstruction of
commercial districts.
In collaboration with Mott Haven Neighborhood Strategies Project,
SOBRO has been successful in training residents and placing them in
jobs with businesses in empowerment zone areas. SOBRO also provides
business training and technical assistance to minority entrepreneurs.
It has also established a credit loan program to facilitate financial
services, including loans for small businesses.
In addition, by forming partnerships with local businesses and area
high schools, SOBRO has succeded in providing valuable internship
programs and part-time jobs for high school and intermediate school
students. The organization also trains adults in many skills including
cable installation, computer repair, home health care, customer
service, and building maintenance.
Moreover, SOBRO has assisted in the transformation of abandoned
buildings into affordable housing and commercial space. It currently
has many projects underway, including the reconstruction of a 60-unit
housing project for people living with AIDS. In addition, SOBRO has
been successful in renovating Bruckner Boulevard, which has attracted
many artists, antique shops, and other businesses to the area.
Changes in the welfare law are placing greater constraints on
organizations like SOBRO that are trying to assist people in need.
Despite this, SOBRO has continued to provide quality services to low-
income South Bronx residents and to attract businesses to the area.
I would like to especially compliment this year's honorees, Maura
Markus, President Citibank North America, Ken Williams, District
Manager, The Home Depot, Bernard Beal, CEO, M.R. Beal & Company, and
Dave Valentin, world-renowned jazz flutist, for their leadership in
improving the quality of life in our community.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to recognize SOBRO for it 28 years
of achievements, training and educating the youth, spurring economic
growth, and beautifying our South Bronx congressional district.
____________________
ON S. 2950, SAND CREEK MASSACRE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE ESTABLISHMENT
ACT OF 2000
______
speech of
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, October 23, 2000
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the companion
House legislation, I support the passage of this Senate measure so it
can go to the President for signature into law.
This bill is important for the country, and particularly for Colorado
because it would authorize establishing a National Historic Site at the
site of the Sand Creek Massacre--an event that for more than a century
has been regarded as one of the most emotionally charged and
controversial events in American history.
On November 29, 1864, Col. John M. Chivington, leading about 700
soldiers of the First and Third Colorado Volunteers, attacked a village
of about 500 Cheyenne and Arapaho people. These people were under the
overall leadership of Black Kettle, and had camped on Sand Creek at the
direction of Major Scott Anthony, who commanded Fort Lyon, about 40
miles to the south. By day's end, the soldiers had killed at least 150
people, including women and children.
The massacre resulted in almost instant controversy, which ultimately
led to three federal investigations, all of which condemned
Chivington's actions. By the 1865 Treaty of Little Arkansas with the
Cheyenne and Arapaho, victims of Sand Creek received minor compensation
for their suffering and loss of property. While some efforts were made
to understand the massacre, place blame on the responsible parties, and
compensate the tribes, little was actually done.
Many people, including Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, visited the
site and collected artifacts of all kinds. The land involved later was
used for large-scale cattle operations, and eventually small private
landowners farmed and grazed the property. As time passed, evidence of
the massacre slowly disappeared. Although the event continued to be
remembered, mostly by the tribes and historians, the only commemoration
of the massacre was a simple granite marker placed near the site by the
local community in 1950.
In 1998, Public Law 105-243 authorized the Secretary of the Interior
to identify the location and extent of the Sand Creek Massacre and to
determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the site as a
unit of the National Park System. Starting in 1998 a variety of
techniques and methods were used to locate the site of the Sand Creek
Massacre. These included a thorough research of written records,
archaeology, geomorphology, aerial
[[Page 24685]]
photographic analysis, traditional tribal methods and recording the
oral traditions of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, the
Northern Cheyenne and the Northern Arapaho.
Once the location of the site was identified, the next task was to
determine national significance and suitability and reasonability of
the site as a unit of the system. To be eligible for consideration,
National Park Service management policies state that an area must
possess nationally significant natural, cultural or recreational
resources; be a suitable and feasible addition to the system; and
require direct NPS management instead of protection by some other
governmental agency or private sector. The Special Resource Study for
the Sand Creek Massacre site, completed in July 2000, concluded that
the area is nationally significant.
I agree with that assessment. The Sand Creek Massacre site possesses
exceptional value in illustrating and interpreting the history of U.S.-
Indian relations in the American West. The massacre of nearly 150
Cheyenne and Arapaho people who believed they were under the protection
of the U.S. Government was a major turning point in the relationship
between whites and Indians. Virtually all Indian and army conflicts
that ensued were rooted, at least partly, in the massacre.
Thus, a National Park System unit at Sand Creek would provide an
opportunity for Americans to better understand the significance of the
massacre, the chain of events that led to it, the relationship between
Indians and whites during the mid-to late-19th Century, the devastating
effects of the massacre upon the Cheyenne and Arapaho peoples, and its
far reaching repercussions, many of which linger today. The site also
retains a high degree of physical integrity, and its isolated setting
will give visitors an opportunity to contemplate the complexities of
the human tragedy that unfolded there.
The Interior Department's Special Resource Study also concluded that
Sand Creek is both suitable and feasible as a unit of the National Park
System--suitable because it represents a cultural theme that is not
already adequately represented in the system, and feasible because the
area taken as a whole is of sufficient size and configuration to ensure
long-term resource protection and accommodate public use.
S. 2950 would authorize the establishment of Sand Creek National
Historic Site. The unit would be established once the Secretary of the
Interior determines that sufficient lands have been acquired to provide
for the protection and commemoration of the Sand Creek Massacre. Lands
are identified on a map dated July 1, 2000 and would be acquired
through donation, purchase from willing sellers or exchange. Priority
for acquisition is given to the site containing the historical member.
Keys to managing the site would be protection of the natural and
cultural features that and critical to telling the story of Sand Creek;
and cooperation and consultation with the tribes in the development of
management plans and educational programs.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by commending the senior Senator from
Colorado, Senator Campbell, for introducing this bill and for all he
has done to make it possible for this bill to be before the House
today. I urge its passage.
____________________
A SPECIAL TRIBUTE TO DR. ROBERT J. BLOUGH, FOR HIS DEDICATED SERVICE TO
HENRY COUNTY, OHIO
______
HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to
pay special tribute to an outstanding individual from the State of
Ohio. Dr. Robert J. Blough retired from his family practice in Ohio's
5th Congressional District after nearly five decades of distinguished
service.
Dr. Blough joined the U.S. Air Force following high school. It was
while stationed in China that he decided to become a doctor. A bomb
blast occurred costing many lives with countless injured. The terrible
incident inspired him to spend the rest of his life helping people.
Dr. Blough has combined his sound medical skills with his
compassionate, personal, and dedicated approach to the practice of
medicine for nearly 47 years. One of his patients remarked on his
dedication by stating, ``Dr. Blough was on call seven days a week, 24
hours a day, 365 days a year. He's touched the life of everybody in
this community for miles around, either themselves or their family
member.'' His medical career alone distinguishes him as a most valued
citizen, but Dr. Blough has contributed so much more.
Dr. Blough has worn many hats throughout his life. Previously, he
piloted his own private plane traveling from coast to coast on
vacations. He also served as an examiner for the Federal Aviation
Administration and as manager for Deshler Airport.
The doctor recently retired from 35 years of service as the on-call
doctor for Oak Grove Nursing Home. And Dr. Blough will retire soon as
coroner of Henry County when his term expires at the end of the year.
Dr. Blough's dedication to his community is second only to his great
love for his family. Along with Celia, his loving wife of more than 55
years, he is blessed with three children.
Mr. Speaker, I have known of Dr. Blough's dedication and service that
has earned him the highest regard for his character and abilities as a
physician. At this time, I would ask my colleagues of the 106th
Congress to join me in paying special tribute to Dr. Robert J. Blough.
His professionalism and service to his community is an example for all
citizens of Ohio and across the country. We thank him, and wish him and
his wife, Celia, the very best in all of his future endeavors.
____________________
HONORING ERIC FONOIMOANA
______
HON. STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eric Fonoimoana
from my district. On Tuesday, September 26th, Eric and his teammate
Dain Blanton captured the Olympic gold medal for beach volleyball.
Eric has excelled in the sport of beach volleyball for more than a
decade. A lifelong resident of the South Bay, Eric was the star player
on both the Manhattan Beach Mira Costa High School and University of
California Santa Barbara volleyball teams. Following a storied
collegiate career, he turned pro in 1993.
For eight years, Eric has been a dominant beach volleyball player.
The endless training and competition culminated with the victory in
Sydney. I congratulate Eric Fonoimoana on this outstanding achievement.
I commend his commitment and dedication to athletic excellence. He has
brought honor to the South Bay. He has brought honor to the United
States. Congratulations to one of the best beach volleyball players in
the world.
____________________
PAY IT FORWARD
______
HON. TOM UDALL
of new mexico
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your
attention a concept that I believe has the potential to inspire all
people, but particularly middle-school children. It's a unique idea
called ``Paying it Forward.'' I am only too pleased to tell my
colleagues about this idea.
The idea I am referring to has been encapsulated in the book by
Catherine Ryan Hyde entitled ``Pay it Forward.'' This book was also
recently released as a motion picture. It is the tender yet powerful
story of Trevor McKinney, a twelve-year-old boy with a vivid
imagination and a paper route, who takes to heart the challenge of an
extra-credit assignment for his Social Studies class: Think of an idea
for world change, and put it into action. Responding to the challenge,
Trevor chooses three people for whom he will do a good deed. Then,
rather than allowing them to pay him back, he tells them to ``pay it
forward'' by doing something good for three more people. In turn, those
three people are to help three more people and so on. In this way,
Trevor believes his acts of kindness will multiply out, geometrically,
until the world is a different place. Mr. Speaker, in the end, ``Pay It
Forward'' is the story of seemingly ordinary people participating in
the extraordinary through the simple faith of a child.
It has been brought to my attention that there is a Pay It Forward
Foundation. The purpose of the foundation is to encourage middle school
children to get involved in their local communities and to ``pay it
forward.'' As children create their own ideas for how to pay it
[[Page 24686]]
forward with their schools and communities, teachers can incorporate
relevant social needs and current affairs into their discussions. A Pay
It Forward project can be applied to all aspects of academic
institutional life. This is a worthy mission that not only helps the
surrounding communities, but also helps our students realize that they
can change the world. Quite frankly, that is a message that is long
overdue. It is a message about overcoming the belief in our individual
cynicism that has resulted in withdrawal from participation in our
governmental, educational, and community activities. I encourage each
and every one of you to take the message to heart. We can never do
enough to make the world a better place.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO AQUINAS HOUSING CORPORATION
______
HON. JOSE E. SERRANO
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is with joy and pride that I pay tribute
to Aquinas Housing Corporation (AHC) which will celebrate its
Nineteenth Anniversary of providing services to the community on
Wednesday, November 8, 2000, at the Marina Del Rey restaurant in the
Bronx.
Aquinas Housing Corporation was founded in 1981 by a group of
volunteers who understood the need to provide quality transitional
housing services to families in need.
Mr. Speaker, over the past 19 years, Aquinas Housing Corporation has
sponsored and developed the rehabilitation of 35 buildings, 990
residential units, 104 cooperatives and 115 two and three family homes.
By the year 2000, AHC plans to renovate 10 more buildings with 160
additional units for a total of 1,152 decent and affordable rental
housing units that were non existent prior to AHC's creation.
Along with housing development, AHC provides a full range of social
services to the residents of its buildings and community at large.
Services offered include an adult job readiness program, a computer
learning center, a clothing bank, case management, tenant organizing,
neighborhood improvement projects, classes in English as a Second
Language, parenting skills, senior services, a home based child care
resource and referral center, a tree maintenance program, and
activities and field trips for youth and seniors.
It is a privilege for me to represent the 16th district of New York
where Aquinas Housing Corporation is located, and I am delighted by its
success. I have witnessed first-hand the exemplary work they are doing
for our community and I am deeply impressed. I applaud the commitment
and the efforts of Aquinas Housing Corporation's staff in the
assistance they provide to the elderly, and low- and moderate-income
families, as well as, in facilitating educational opportunities for our
talented youth.
I would like to especially compliment this year's honorees, Monadnock
Construction which has been with Aquinas Housing since 1992, Ana Maria
Chamorro, a long time resident of Community Board Six, and John
DelValle Senior Vice President of retail banking at Banco Popular, for
their leadership in improving the quality of life in our community.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
Aquinas Housing Corporation and its staff and in wishing them continued
success.
____________________
SPANISH PEAKS WILDERNESS ACT OF 2000
______
speech of
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Monday, October 23, 2000
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the
companion House legislation, I rise in support of this important bill
to designate the Spanish Peaks as wilderness. Enactment of this
legislation has been delayed far too long.
The mountains we call the Spanish Peaks are two volcanic peaks in Las
Animas and Huerfano Counties. Their Native American name is Wayatoya.
The eastern peak rises to 12,893 feet above sea level, and the summit
of the western peak is at 13,626 feet.
These two peaks were landmarks for Native Americans and for some of
Colorado's other early settlers and for travelers along the trail
between Bent's Old Fort on the Arkansas River and Taos, New Mexico.
This part of the San Isabel National Forest has outstanding scenic,
geologic, and wilderness values, including a spectacular system of more
than 250 free-standing dikes and ramps of volcanic materials radiating
from the peaks. These lands are striking for their beauty and are also
very valuable for wildlife habitat.
Since 1977, the Spanish Peaks have been included in the National
Registry of Natural Landmarks, and the State of Colorado has designated
them as a natural area. The Forest Service first reviewed them for
possible wilderness designation as part of its second roadless area
review and evaluation and first recommended them for wilderness in
1979. However, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980 instead provided for
their continued management as a wilderness study area--a status that
was continued on an interim basis by the Colorado Wilderness Act of
1993.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the Spanish Peaks are a very special part of
Colorado. As I said, their inclusion in the National Wilderness
Preservation System has been too long delayed. In fact, I had hoped
that designation of this area as wilderness would be completed two
years ago after the House passed a Spanish Peaks wilderness bill
sponsored by my predecessor, Representative David Skaggs, and
Representative McInnis.
Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on that measure, so it was
necessary to start again in this Congress. And again it has taken
longer than I would have liked--the House passed a bill more than a
year ago, and the bill now before us was passed by the Senate back in
April of this year. But, better late than never.
This bill does differ from the prior Skaggs-McInnis bill in a few
respects, and in particular by the exclusion from wilderness of an old
road, known as the Bulls Eye Mine Road, and the inclusion of language
related to that road. There have been some questions about the scope
and effect of that language. However, in a floor colloquy when the
House debated the companion legislation last year the gentleman from
American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Mr. McInnis clarified matters--
and the committee report on the Senate bill echoes that colloquy. That
report says:
``Section 3(a) addresses the management of the Bulls Eye
Mine road. The subsection directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to allow for the continuation of historic uses of
the road established before the date of enactment of the Act,
subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may
prescribe. The Committee notes that the Bulls Eye Mine road--
which has been excluded from the Spanish Peaks is not
intended to restrict or otherwise limit the Secretary's
management authority with respect to the road, including any
decision to open or close the road, nor does it require the
Secretary to improve or maintain the road. However, the
Committee expects that the Secretary will consult with local
citizens and other interested parties regarding the
implementation of this Act with respect to the road.
Like the House colloquy, this report language is an important part of
the legislative history of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is the third wilderness bill involving lands in
Colorado that has passed during this Congress. I have supported all of
them, because I think we need to make it a priority to protect our
state's open spaces and wilderness areas, and I think we should be
proud of their enactment.
But much more remains to be done. Still pending in the Resources
Committee are two wilderness bills I have introduced, dealing with the
James Peak area and with lands within Rocky Mountain National Park, as
well as a very important bill by our colleague Ms. DeGette that breaks
important new ground in terms of protecting wilderness areas on public
lands in Colorado managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
I had hoped that before now all these measures would have been given
consideration in our Committee and here on the floor of the House. But
that hasn't happened. So, if I have the opportunity to serve in the
next Congress, I will do all I can to have them considered next year.
Meanwhile, I urge enactment of the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act.
____________________
HONORING RACING LEGEND DARRELL WALTRIP ON THE OCCASION OF HIS
RETIREMENT
______
HON. BOB CLEMENT
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor racing legend Darrell
Waltrip of Franklin, Tennessee, on the occasion of his retirement after
twenty-nine successful years at the top of the sport. Waltrip is
concluding his monumental NASCAR career with a Victory 2000 tour across
the nation.
[[Page 24687]]
Darrell Waltrip was born February 5, 1947, in Owensboro, Kentucky.
His love of racing began at the age of 12 when he first drove a go-
kart. Just four short years later, he was racing a stock car.
Eventually, his father helped him build a 1936 Chevrolet Coupe that he
could race on a dirt track in his hometown. Fortunately, his father was
able to share almost his entire career with him until he passed away
after an extended illness in early 2000. Today, Waltrip makes his home
in Franklin, Tennessee, near Nashville, with his wife Stevie, and
children Jessica and Sarah.
Darrell Waltrip's first professional race was a Winston Cup race at
the Talladega, Alabama, Superspeedway in 1972. Over the years, Waltrip
sped to the top of his field, earning numerous accolades and winning
many races including the coveted Winston Cup championship a total of
three times. For example, he was voted Most Popular Driver two times by
his peers and named American Driver of the Year three times. In 1977,
1981, and 1982, he was named National Motorsports Press Association
Driver of the Year. In addition, the years 1981 and 1982 brought honors
as Auto Racing Digest Driver of the Year. Today, he is considered one
of the foremost race drivers to participate in the sport, and his
influence can be seen among the new generation of NASCAR drivers.
During the years 1981-1986, his partnership with car owner Junior
Johnson yielded three series championships, 43 victories and 34 pole
positions. The highlight of Waltrip's career came in 1989 when he won
the Daytona 500 on February 17, in car No. 17, in his 17th attempt for
one of racing's highest honors.
Darrell Waltrip's statistics are phenomenal. With a career that
includes 276 top-five finishes, 390 top-ten finishes, 37 Superspeedway
wins, 47 short track wins, and winnings totaling nearly $18 million,
there is no doubt that Waltrip is a true racing legend.
He has broken many barriers in the sport by becoming both a driver
and an owner, and is recognized as the first corporate spokesperson in
racing. In Tennessee, he is known and loved for his numerous and
continuous charitable contributions to the community. In 1979, he was
named Tennessee's Professional Athlete of the Year.
Currently, he owns and operates Darrell Waltrip Honda-Volvo Car
Dealership, serving many of his fans. I consider Darrell Waltrip a
personal friend. In fact, I was with him for the grand opening of his
car dealership in Williamson County.
Darrell Waltrip is to be commended and honored for his incredible
racing career, which has entertained and enthralled thousands of fans
for the past twenty-nine years. He is a true racing pioneer, taking the
sport beyond the racetrack and into the hearts and homes of America.
____________________
RECOGNIZING PAUL TOWNSEND'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO LONG ISLAND
______
HON. MICHAEL P. FORBES
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional man who
has dedicated himself to Long Island, its people, its businesses, and
its natural resources. A tenth generation Long Islander, Mr. Paul
Townsend has worked for more than half a century to promote and
preserve Long Island.
Mr. Townsend has provided leadership at the highest level. He has
served as a catalyst for change and development of our region. His
energy and enthusiasm for a wide range of projects is unparalleled. He
promoted landmarks such as Levittown. He worked with the federal
government to create the Fire Island National Seashore. He created
institutions such as Long Island Business News and North Shore
University Hospital. He and his wife Terry, worked to establish Long
Island's first professional Equity theatre. He served as editor of the
Long Island Business News for 45 years and now serves as editor
emeritus.
Using his vision, Mr. Townsend assembled the talent to bring
important projects to fruition. He worked to produce affordable housing
which is now a model for the nation. He, and his colleagues, developed
the United Way of Long Island and he served as its first executive
director. Long Island's United Way now consists of over 160 health and
human care service agencies. The United Way helps local people and in
the process, strengthens the community. This organization has helped to
prevent youth violence, help care for the very young and the old,
provide emergency food, shelter and clothing, and support job
assistance training for the disabled.
Mr. Townsend also founded the Long Island Business Development
Council and worked to establish Long Island's Entrepreneur Awards
Program. He and his wife received the Long Island Association's first
Lifetime Achievement Award. He has been an integral part of the Long
Island business community.
Mr. Townsend has made countless contributions to the Long Island
community. His dedication to the community distinguishes him as a role
model all Americans should aspire to emulate. And so it is with great
pleasure that I commend Mr. Townsend on his achievements, and wish him
all the best for the future.
____________________
HONORING MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF THE GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYER U.S.S.
``COLE''
______
speech of
HON. JACK QUINN
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 18, 2000
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, we gather today to honor the crew of the
naval destroyer U.S.S. Cole. A tragedy of great magnitude occurred in
the Yemen port of Aden on October 12, 2000. While the U.S.S. Cole was
refueling in Aden, in an apparent terrorist suicide mission, a small
boat loaded with explosives struck the U.S.S. Cole. The impact of the
explosion left a 40-by-45 hole in the side of the destroyer, but this
impact extends far beyond the port of Yemen, and into the hearts of the
American people.
Not only did this explosion strike a devastating blow to the ship
itself, but the ship's crew as well. This deliberate act of terrorism
has left seven crewmembers dead, ten missing and presumed dead, and
over three dozen wounded.
So, we gather here today to not only express our heartfelt sympathies
to the families, friends, and loved ones of these servicemen and women,
but also to express our thanks for the ultimate sacrifice that these
men and women made for their nation. The United States Government has
yet to identify the culprit of this terrible act, but we do know that
the U.S.S. Cole and its crew were going about routine duties in the
area and performed dutifully and selflessly in a situation of great
duress.
This unfortunate tragedy has taken seventeen lives and wounded over
40 U.S. servicemen. We cannot commend the crew of the U.S.S. Cole
highly enough for the exemplary spirit and patriotism which they
demonstrated in salvaging their crew and ship. Let the memory of those
who perished in the U.S.S. Cole attack, motivate us to carry on with
the same spirit with which they served to preserve the future peace and
security, of our nation.
____________________
STROKE THERAPY'S NEW PUSH
______
HON. DAVID E. PRICE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, a recent article in the
Washington Post reminds us of the urgent attention stroke deserves as
the third leading cause of death in this country.
Stroke affects the most delicate and vital organ of the body, the
brain. The National Stroke Association uses the term ``brain attack''
to characterize this medical condition and describe the urgent need for
prompt medical attention. A stroke occurs when blood flow to the brain
is interrupted either by a clogged artery or a blood vessel rupture.
Stroke touches the lives of four out of every five American families.
It touched the Congress this year with the tragic death of our friend
and colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. Each year 750,000 Americans will
suffer a stroke and 160,000 of them will die. African Americans and
Latinos are at an even greater risk of stroke. Stroke is also a leading
cause of adult disability, leaving a majority of survivors with
disabilities ranging from moderate to severe. The statistics are
staggering, but fortunately, many strokes can be prevented.
There are important resources available for stroke prevention,
treatment and rehabilitation. The National Stroke Association has a
wealth of information available on its web site at www.stroke.org, or
by calling 1-800-STROKES. Clearly, stroke is an issue that deserves
debate, discussion and our immediate attention as a major public health
issue. I submit this article to my colleagues and look forward to
discussing approaches we might take to reduce the terrible toll from
stroke.
[From The Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2000, Sunday, Final Edition]
Stroke Therapy's New Push; Aggressive Doctors Go Deep Into the Brain
(By Susan Okie)
Like a wisp of cloud that's really the edge of a hurricane,
the first sign of what was
[[Page 24688]]
about to happen to Garline Perry seemed a small thing.
One morning last month, Perry complained to his wife that
he couldn't keep his balance. When he tried to walk, she
said, he kept ``listing to the right.''
Susana Perry took her husband, 57, to the emergency room at
Inova Fair Oaks Hospital. Minutes after they arrived, the
storm hit.
``He yelled, `I can't hear you! I can't see you!' . . . He
fell to the floor and starting convulsing,'' recalled Susana
Perry. A two-inch clot had blocked a major artery at the back
of Perry's brain, producing a catastrophic stroke.
Unable to move, talk, breathe or even blink, the Fairfax
man was placed on a respirator and flown by helicopter to
Inova Fairfax Hospital, where radiologist John J. ``Buddy''
Connors embarked on a rescue mission that few doctors would
dare attempt. He snaked a long, fine tube through an artery
to reach the plug of congealed blood inside Perry's brain and
began to drip in a clot-busting drug, hoping to reopen the
blocked vessel.
Along with perhaps 300 other doctors in the United States,
Connors works on the uncharted borders of stroke therapy,
putting novel devices and powerful drugs deep into an organ
where a mishap can mean death, coma or paralysis. Such
maneuvers signal a newly activist approach to a disorder that
doctors once met with resignation. Strokes, the third-leading
cause of death in the United States, are now viewed as
emergencies in which rapid and aggressive treatment may save
lives and minimize disability.
Although the treatment administered by specialists such as
Connors has produced dramatic results for some patients, it
remains largely untested except in small pilot studies. The
situation underscores the challenge researchers face in
developing a new treatment, especially a complex one that
combines drugs, devices and technical skill. Often, such
therapies are refined and tested one patient at a time,
evolving and prolifering for years before anyone is certain
how well they work.
``The fact that [a new treatment] seems logical and does
what it should doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to
benefit the patient,'' said John R. Marler, associate
director for clinical trials at the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Doctors such as Connors, faced daily with desperate cases,
contend that they are advancing medical knowledge as best
they can. ``We have to do this,'' Connors said. ``We know we
can help patients. . . . There is no regulatory process for
this kind of thing.''
Damage Control
Some 600,000 Americans suffer strokes each year. The
problem occurs when a blood vessel in the brain becomes
blocked by a clot or hemorrhage, causing nerve cells supplied
by the vessel to die. Until recently, there was no way to
mitigate the damage, only physical therapy and the hope that
the brain would partially recover in time.
That changed in 1996, when the Food and Drug Administration
approved the clot-dissolving drug tPA as the first effective
treatment. But only about 2 percent of U.S. stroke victims
receive tPA. a major reason is time: The intravenous therapy
only helps if it is started within three hours of the first
symptoms, and few people with an incipient stroke make it to
the emergency room and through the required battery of
checkups and tests before that deadline has passed.
The approach Connors uses appears to be effective if
started within six hours after symptoms begin. Specialists in
his field also believe it may produce better outcomes by
delivering clot-dissolving drugs directly into an artery of
the brain instead of through an arm vein, the only mode of
administration approved by the FDA.
When tPA is given intravenously, Connors said, ``they give
you a massive amount . . . just so that a teeny bit of it
might get to a small clot in your brain.'' It's like pouring
Drano into a house's main water intake pipe, hoping that some
will reach a blocked sink. In contrast, Connors said, he uses
a different clot-dissolving drug at about one-fiftieth the
usual intravenous dose and puts it as close as possible to
the blockage.
The effectiveness of intra-arterial treatment varies,
depending on how soon it is started and on the size and
location of the clot. Only two studies, funded by Abbott
Laboratories, maker of a clot-dissolving drug called
prourokinase, have evaluated such treatment by comparing it
with a placebo. In the larger study, involving 180 patients,
40 percent of those who received the therapy recovered enough
to live independently, compared with 25 percent of patients
given a placebo. The degree of benefit was similar to that
seen with intravenous tPA, but the rate of brain hemorrhages
was higher--about 10 percent among recipients of intra-
arterial prourokinase, compared with 6 percent among patients
in the tPA study.
Although the findings suggested that the treatment could be
beneficial, the FDA asked the manufacturer to conduct another
study to obtain more data about the therapy's safety and
effectiveness. Abbott has not decided whether to do so.
Genentech Inc., which makes tPA, also has not decided
whether to study intra-arterial treatment, a spokesman said.
Connors believes that companies do not want to fund
additional trials because they doubt they will recoup
research costs. ``Genentech, Abbott and other companies have
done the math. . . . The doses that we use for [intra-
arterial] therapy are so small that it would take 500 years
for them to make that money back at the rate that we are
using the drugs now,'' he said.
Tareta Lewis, an Abbott spokeswoman, said cost is not the
only consideration. ``There are many things that go into
making the decision,'' she said.
Lacking such studies, Connors and other specialists say
they don't know the exact benefits and risks of what they are
doing.
``We get the patients who don't meet the three-hour time
window'' for intravenous tPA, said Richard Latchaw, chief of
neuroradiology at the University of Pittsburgh. ``Using a
compassionate view, we will go ahead and give intra-arterial
tPA in a dosage that we personally think is efficacious. Do
we know exactly what that dosage should be? No.''
The therapy has never been directly compared with
intravenous tPA. The National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke plans to fund a study at the University
of Cincinnati Medical Center in which researchers will give
80 patients with major strokes a combination of intravenous
and intra-arterial treatment. They intend to compare the
outcomes to existing data on intravenous tPA.
``Itra-arterial therapy does more than put the drug next to
the clot,'' said Marler. ``They're passing the catheter into
the clot, trying to break [it] up. . . . There are definitely
patients it will help, but does it balance out'' against the
increased risk of bleeding?
In the meantime, Connors said, ``hundreds of patients are
being treated right now, all over the United States.'' He has
organized a training course for doctors to be held in
Washington next month and is setting up a registry to collect
data on patient outcomes.
``This is a new field and we don't know everything we need
to know,'' Connors said. ``You're playing statistics. The
whole thing is statistics and odds.''
Difficult Decisions
The odds in Perry's case looked to be long. His clot was in
the basilar artery, dreaded location for a stroke because it
nourishes areas of the brain that control life-support
functions such as breathing. Without treatment, he would
certainly die. With it, Connors thought he might recover and
regain considerable function.
But there was a third possibility. Perry might end up in a
nightmarish state that neurologists call ``locked in''; awake
and aware, but permanently unable to speak, move or
communicate.
If that were the outcome, Connors told Susana Perry that
afternoon, ``if it was me, I wouldn't want to make it.''
He offered to stop treatment if she thought it best.
When Connors posed that question, he and his team had
already been working on Perry for an hour at Inova Fairfax
Hospital. Perry lay on a table in an operating room equipped
with X-ray machines that took magnified pictures of blood
flowing through the vessels of his brain.
While an anesthesiologist monitored Perry's vital
functions, surgically gowned nurses and technicians rushed to
fetch drugs and equipment.
Connors and another doctor, Firas Al-Ali, had threaded a
long, slippery tube called a catheter, thinner than a strand
of angel hair pasta, through a larger tube in Perry's groin,
guiding it along major arteries of his abdomen, chest and
neck until the tip rested against the clot inside his skull.
Through the catheter, they squirted dye to illuminate the
blocked vessel on X-rays and dribbled in medicines that they
hoped would tease apart the clump of protein and blood cells.
Most clots that Connors attacks in this way are the size of
a grain of rice. Perry's was the size of his little finger.
Connors asked Susana Perry for permission to ``go for
cleaning everything up'' to maximize her husband's chances of
recovery--even though doing so would heighten the risk that
the drugs might cause bleeding in his brain.
``His outlook was 99 percent death,'' Connors said. ``The
options were so bad. It's one thing to have a stroke where
you can't move your arm but you're mostly still you. It's
another thing to have a stroke where you're paralyzed from
the eyes down. . . . There's no right or wrong decision on
this. It's something where you have to think, `What if this
was me?' and get the family involved.''
Susana Perry told Connors to go for broke. ``I said, `I'm
not ready to get rid of this guy,' '' she recalled.
Connors treated Perry for eight more hours. At last, he
removed the catheter and stitched up the small wound in
Perry's groin. He estimated that he had dissolved about 95
percent of the clot. Now, it was a matter of waiting to see
whether the treatment had worked.
At 1 a.m. the next day, a nurse woke Susana Perry, who was
asleep in a room near the intensive care unit. ``He's
responding,'' the nurse said. ``He's nodding `yes' or `no' to
simple questions.''
[[Page 24689]]
Perry was still on a respirator and his left side was
paralyzed, but the pace of his recovery over the next few
days astonished his doctors. Three days after his stroke, he
signaled to his son that he wanted something. A nurse handed
him a pad and pencil. He wrote, ``Beer.''
Two days later, doctors disconnected the respirator and
Perry was able to breathe on his own. A week after the
stroke, he had regained some movement in his left leg and was
eating and cracking jokes about the hospital food. ``There's
so much I'm learning from the beginning,'' he said, speaking
slowly. ``You take so much for granted.''
``His level of recovery is--what can I say?--miraculous,''
said David Grass, Perry's neurologist. ``This would have been
fatal, absolutely no doubt. . . . He has a left-sided
weakness that is improving. He has normal mental function. He
has some mild difficulty seeing to his right, but that's
improving. He's had no problems with speech. . . . He's going
to need several months of rehabilitation, but I'm optimistic
that he may eventually be able to return to work. ''
____________________
PRESENTATION OF TERESA OE: NORTH DAKOTA'S STATE BEEF AMBASSADOR
______
HON. EARL POMEROY
of north dakota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on September 28-30 of this year, the North
Dakota Stockmen's Association held its annual convention in Bismarck,
ND. I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues
the remarks of one of the conference presenters. Ms. Teresa Oe, a high
school student from Belfield, North Dakota and North Dakota's State
Beef Ambassador, gave an impressive speech to the convention delegates.
Ms. Oe's remarks addressed the environmental benefits of cattle
grazing. I would encourage my colleagues to take a moment to review her
remarks which may help to bridge communication between cattlemen and
environmentalists.
The Misunderstanding
(By: Teresa Oe--North Dakota State Beef Ambassador)
Cattlemen and environmentalists have long regarded each
other as the enemy. Rarely do they wish to converse with one
another, let alone compromise. When they eventually agreed to
``discuss'' matters, the resulting arguments are based
primarily on biased opinion and accusations. This
communication gap has led to the disastrous misunderstanding
that cattle and conservation cannot successfully coexist.
The irony in this notion, however, is that modern day
cattlemen, equipped with new range management tools, are
extremely capable and dedicated conservationalists. Believe
it or not, grazing cattle are their most valuable means for
upgrading environmental well being.
According to the 2000 Cattle and Beef Handbook, produced by
the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, ``Grazing lands
comprise about one-third of the land in the United States.''
Due to steep terrain or dry conditions, these lands often are
not suitable for cultivation or development. Cattle graze
these virtually useless lands, utilizing grass, one of our
country's most ample, renewable resources. Cattle are capable
of efficiently transforming grass and other forage into
nutritious high-protein beef.
Nevertheless, more and more every day, environmentalists
are questioning if cattle belong on the rangelands. Surely,
if environmental agencies only knew the significance of
cattle to these areas, then their minds would be at ease and
our cattle could continue to do their job. With this motive
in mind, it is my privilege to share with you five major
environmental benefits of cattle on the rangelands.
First of all, properly grazed cattle promote healthy soil
and plant vigor. As a matter of fact, as documented in the
Soil and Land Conditions publication, the Wildflower Research
Center states, ``Grazing is necessary for the maintenance of
grassland systems.'' Cattle actually help plants and grasses
grow by aerating the soil with their hooves. When cattle
saunter over the land, they loosen the dirt which allows more
oxygen to enter the soil. Without this oxygen, the soil
develops a hard crust and is unable to readily absorb water
and nutrients. Moreover, cattle naturally fertilize the soil
in the form of manure.
Cattle also encourage plant reproduction. As a natural
means of reseeding, they scatter the seeds of various plant
life and bury them in the ground, surrounding them in soil
that is necessary for the onset of growth.
Regulating bothersome weeds and shrubs is also
characteristic of cattle. They consume these nuisances which,
otherwise, without the use of herbicides, would have the
potential to grow and reproduce uncontrollably.
Furthermore, cattle are doing a large favor for many
species of wildlife. Elk, deer, wild sheep, antelope, and
geese, among others, are partial to young, palatable grass
shoots. In order to stimulate and enhance this new, preferred
growth, cattle must first remove the rank fall vegetation
that other animals are hesitant to eat.
Last, but certainly not least, cattle grazing aids in
preventing fires. Longer vegetation helps carry uncontrolled
wildfires that cause mass destruction and expense. In the Wow
that Cow! pamphlet published by the American National Cattle
Women Inc., it points out that grazing these areas reduces
the amount of matter on the ground, thus limiting the
quantity of fuel to burn and restricting the fires ability to
spread quickly.
Many members of our society have been misinformed that
rangelands are in pitiful condition and that cattle are to
blame, when in fact, just the opposite is true. As quoted by
Rockwood Research in 1996, ``73 percent of cattlemen's range
of pasture land had been reported as improved in the past ten
years, while only six percent had declared a decline.'' Not
surprisingly, this study also showed that 62 percent of
cattlemen reported an increase in wildlife. People for the
USA! Grazing Position Paper states, ``Scientists and range
experts are constantly proving that rangelands are currently
in their best condition since the turn of the 20th century,
and the improvement is continuing.''
If statistics verify that rangelands and the wildlife
therein are truly thriving, why then do members of the
environmental community still feel the cattle should be
removed from these areas? Mistakes by ranchers of the past
are mostly responsible for the negative attention that cattle
receive, but this is unfair. Cattle can only be as efficient
workers as their owners are good managers. Ranchers of the
past did not have the educational resources that are
available to us now. Today's cattlemen have a tremendous
understanding of the correlation between the proper
maintenance of natural recources and their success as
livestock producers. Educated ranchers of this generation are
better able to make use of cattle grazing as an effective
management tool.
Please, take just a moment to visualize the rangelands
without cattle. Better yet, try to imagine McDonald's without
hamburgers, a shower without soap, Tupperware without
plastic, a diabetic without insulin, or a kiss without
toothpaste. Impossible, isn't it? But without cattle, it
would be extremely difficult of even impossible to obtain
these items. After all, cattle provide beef and other
byproducts that are significant in the creation of countless
industrial, household, pharmaceutical, and food products that
we use every day. My wish is that everyone will understand
that no matter who you are or what kind of stand you take on
environmental issues, if cattle are removed from the
rangelands, ultimately everyone will suffer.
In order to prevent this dilemma, we must enlighten others
with the truth about cattle and grazing. The devastating
misunderstanding that cattle and conservation cannot
successfully coexist will be reversed only by knowledge and
communication. Please take it upon yourselves to share with
others the virtue of cattle on our rangelands and beef in our
every day lives.
Bibliography
Cattle and Beef Handbook Facts, Figures, and Information,
National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Englewood, CO. (June
1999)
Grazing. National Cattlemen's Beef Association. (1996).
[Online], Available: http//www.teachfree.com/ffyf/
grazing.html
Non-Federal Grazing Lands in the United States. United
States Department of Agriculture. (1997). [Online],
Available: http//www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/BSC/grace/nonfed.html
Grazing Position Paper: Facts vs. Fiction. People for the
USA! [Online], Available: www.pfw.org/grazing
Soil and Land Conditions: Myths and Facts about Beef
Production. [Online], Available: www.beef.org/library/myths-
facts
Wow That Cow! American National CattleWomen, Inc.
Englewood, CO.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
______
HON. KEN CALVERT
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Eastern
Municipal Water District, who observed its 50th anniversary of service
to western Riverside County on October 14th. On that nostalgic day
Eastern Municipal celebrated with present and past employees, and their
families, with a fly-over, antique car show, displays and
demonstration, live '50s music, clowns, a magic show and much more.
Formed in 1950 to secure additional water for the western Riverside
County, which faced declining groundwater supply and continuing
droughts, Eastern Municipal has exceeded expectations. Originally only
serving a lightly populated area, it now has a service area of 555
square miles, with a total of nearly 440,000 people, while additionally
providing
[[Page 24690]]
sewage collection and water recycling services. In 1999/2000 Eastern
Municipal sold 83,000 acre-feet of fresh water alone (one-acre-foot is
325,900 gallons, or as much as two families use in and around their
homes in one year). One quarter of their water supply comes from wells,
while the remainder comes from the Colorado River Aqueduct and its
connections to the California State Water Project. Additionally,
Eastern Municipal sells to eight other water agencies, which serve the
areas of: Elsinore Valley, Western Riverside County, Lake Hemet, City
of Hemet, Nuevo, City of San Jacinto and Rancho California.
In water storage, Eastern Municipal maintains 76 tanks which hold
nearly 170 million gallons of water. These tanks provide assurance that
water will be available during possible future droughts or declining
water supply.
Mr. Speaker, for the state of California there are two issues
constantly at the forefront: water, and more water. Therefore, the
importance of municipal water districts cannot be underestimated--they
will continue to grow and play an increasingly important role in
southern California. As the Riverside and the Inland Empire continue to
grow, we will need to find ways to live within the 4.4 million acre-
feet restriction on the Colorado River that has been imposed by the
Secretary of the Interior on southern California. The goals of
reclamation will become even more important. Eastern Municipal Water
District has proven itself capable of solving our water supply
challenges for the past 50 years. I look forward to working with them
on our important shared goals for years to come. Again, I extend my
``Congratulations!'' to Eastern Municipal Water District.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS
CONFERENCE REPORT
______
HON. JAMES H. MALONEY
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
4461, the Fiscal Year Agriculture Appropriations Conference report.
Although this bill is flawed, it contains critical provisions which
reflect my commitment to providing seniors access to lifesaving
prescription medications. The measure provides $78.5 billion--$3
billion more than the House-passed bill--for critical programs from
prescription drugs to hunger, food safety, and clean water.
I vigorously support efforts to increase seniors' access to
affordable prescription drugs. This Conference agreement allows U.S.
pharmacies and wholesalers to buy American-made prescription drugs
abroad and reimport them into the United States. Since these drugs are
often sold abroad at prices significantly below those charged in the
United States, America consumers will be able to purchase these
reimported drugs at lower prices than they would otherwise pay.
Although I support the reimportation provisions, this step should not
be mistaken as a substitute for much-needed prescription drug coverage
under Medicare. I continue to urge my colleagues to join me in calling
for the enactment of a comprehensive prescription drug program to be
included as a part of all Seniors' basic Medicare benefits.
In addition to addressing the problem of prescription drugs for
seniors, the Conferees have taken steps to ameliorate several other
pivotal issues in the House-passed bill. The report addresses the
ongoing prevalence of hunger and food insecurity in America by
incorporating sections of H.R. 3192, the Hunger Relief Act. Low-income
families are currently disqualified from participation in the food
stamp program if they own a car worth more than $4,650, or if they pay
monthly housing costs of more than $275. As a cosponsor of the Hunger
Relief Act, I am pleased that under this report both vehicle and
housing expenses would be updated to more accurately reflect the
expense of reliable transportation, and the high cost of housing
incurred by America's working families--allowing increased
participation in the nation's first line of defense against hunger.
The measure also improves upon the House bill by providing sufficient
funding for critical food safety and conservation programs. The
Conference measure increased funding for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service by more than $22 million, which will help minimize
contamination and ensure consumer food safety. Additionally, the bill
provides additional funding for state water quality grants and
conservation programs, which include essential flood prevention
operations.
Unfortunately, the Conference committee did not act in the best
interest of our children, or our farmers, when it agreed to a $500
million subsidy for tobacco companies. I have worked hard to protect
America's children from the dangers of tobacco, and I have supported
long-term solutions to the fundamental problems facing the small
family-run tobacco farm, which is why I am deeply dismayed that the
Conferees have included such an ill conceived provision that undermines
the health of our children and the viability of the struggling family
farm.
My colleagues, as unsatisfactory as some of the provisions in this
bill may be, it is up to us to do everything in our power to provide
access to prescription drugs that can mean the different between life
and death, or between health and chronic disease, for senior citizens.
Although the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report is not a
perfect bill, I urge you not to let the perfect be the enemy of the
good. For that reason, I support H.R. 4461, the Fiscal Year 2001
Agriculture Appropriations Conference report.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MRS. THELMA M. WILLIAMS
______
HON. DONALD M. PAYNE
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues here in the U.S.
House of Representatives to join me in congratulating a very special
person, Mrs. Thelma M. Williams, who will be honored in New Jersey by
the Elks Pride of Trenton on October 28th for her many years of
dedicated community service.
A native of Freehold, New Jersey, Mrs. Williams is a member of St.
Michael's Episcopal Church, where she works on the Building Ground
Committee and with the Episcopal Church Women. A caring person who is
always there to help others, Mrs. Williams serves as a volunteer in the
soup kitchen. Organizations to which she belongs include the Elks Pride
of Trenton; the NAACP; and AFSCME, where she holds the post of
treasurer. In addition, she works on the Board of Elections and serves
as a trustee of the Northwest Community Improvement Association. She
was employed by the State for 32 years and retired in 1990.
Mrs. Williams is proud of her family--she has a daughter, Marie
Meadow, two grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. She serves as
an inspiration to all of those around her.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in expressing our
appreciation to Mrs. Williams for her dedicated service and our very
best wishes as she is honored this weekend.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. CHRIS CANNON
of utah
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, on September 7, 2000 the House in recorded
vote number 459 voted on H.R. 4844 the Railroad Retirement and
Survivors' Improvement Act. During this vote I mistakenly voted Nay
against the bill and should have voted Aye in favor of the bill. I am a
co-sponsor of H.R. 4844 and wish to express my support for the bill.
____________________
INDIAN GOVERNMENT INFILTRATING ORGANIZATIONS TO PROMOTE THE SPECTRE OF
``TERRORISM'' IN PUNJAB
______
HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, it has recently come to light that the police
in Punjab have been planting RDX explosives on members of the Babbar
Khalsa organization in Punjab and then killing them in encounters,
claiming that they are importing the explosives from Pakistan.
The Indian government is known to have infiltrated the organization's
top levels. They used their agents within this and other organizations
to carry out the bombing of their own Air India airliner off Canada in
1985, which killed 329 innocent people.
In November 1994, the Hitavada, an Indian newspaper, reported that
the Indian government paid $1.5 billion to the late Governor of Punjab,
a man named Surendra Nath, to foment terrorist activity in Punjab and
Kashmir. In March, according to two extensive investigations, the
Indian government murdered 35 Sikhs in the village of Chithi Singhpora.
Between 1993 and 1994, 50,000 Sikhs ``disappeared'' at the hands of
Indian forces. According to Amnesty International, there are
[[Page 24691]]
thousands of political prisoners being held without charge or trial.
Human-rights activists say that there are 50,000 Sikh political
prisoners alone. The Akali Dal government in Punjab promised to get
these political prisoners released, buy they have made no move to do
so.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear who the real terrorists are. As the
defenders of freedom and democracy, America must declare India a
terrorist state and cut off its aid until the terrorism and human-
rights violations end. We should also declare our support for
protecting the rights of Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and other
minorities by supporting self-determination for their homelands in the
form of a free and fair plebiscite on their political status, with
international supervision to make sure that neither side tries to
corrupt the vote.
Mr. Speaker, the Council of Khalistan has issued a press release on
the Indian government's effort to revive the spectre of ``terrorism''
in Punjab by planting RDX explosives on Sikh activitists. I encourage
all my colleagues to read this informative press release, and I would
like to insert it into the Record at this time.
Babbar Khalsa Members Being Killed for RDX--Planting Explosive Is Modus
Operandi of Indian Intelligence
Indian Government Has Infiltrated Sikh Organizations
Washington, D.C., October 24, 2000.--Punjab Police have
been killing members of Babbar Khalsa in encounters in
Punjab, claiming that they are bringing RDX explosives in
from Pakistan. Planting RDX explosives is the modus operandi
of the Indian government. A few years ago, they planted RDX
in the car of an American businessman who was visiting Punjab
and Pakistan to visit relatives and religious shrines.
``The Indian government has infiltrated the top levels of
Babbar Khalsa,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of
the Council of Khalistan, the government pro tempore of
Khalistan, the Sikh homeland that declared its independence
from India on October 7, 1987. He noted that the book ``Soft
Target,'' written by two Canadian journalists, proves that
the Indian government carried out the 1985 bombing of an Air
India jetliner that killed 329 people. They used their agents
within Babbar Khalsa in that operation, he charged.
``There is no terrorism in Punjab except the terrorism of
the Indian government,'' Dr. Aulakh said. He noted that in
March, during President Clinton's visit to India, the Indian
government murdered 35 Sikhs in the village of Chithi
Singhpora, Kashmir. Two independent investigations and an
Amnesty International report have confirmed the government's
responsibility. In November 1994, the Indian newspaper
Hitavada reported that the Indian government paid the late
Governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, about $1.5 billion to
organize and support covert state terrorism in Punjab,
Khalistan and in Kashmir. The Indian Supreme Court described
the situation in Punjab as ``worse than a genocide.''
About 50,000 Sikhs languish in Indian prisons as political
prisoners without charge or trial. Between 1993 and 1994,
50,000 Sikhs were made to disappear by Indian forces. More
than 250,000 Sikhs have been murdered since 1984. Over
200,000 Christians have been killed since 1947 and over
70,000 Kashmiri Muslims have been killed since 1988, as well
as tens of thousands of Dalit ``untouchables,'' Assamese,
Manipuris, Tamils, and others.
``There are many good people in Babbar Khalsa who just want
freedom for our homeland, Khalistan,'' Dr. Aulakh said, ``but
they are being used by Indian intelligence and its agents
within Babbar Khalsa to revive the myth of Sikh terrorism and
undermine the Sikh struggle for freedom. The infiltration
goes to the highest levels,'' he said. ``I call on Babbar
Khalsa members to make sure that they are not used by Indian
infiltrators. I call on them to unite with the Council of
Khalistan in the peaceful, democratic, nonviolent movement to
liberate Khalistan,'' he said.
``India is on the verge of disintegration,'' said Dr.
Aulakh. ``Kashmir is going to be free. Khalistan will also be
free during this decade, by the grace of Guru. Guru gave
sovereignty to the Sikh Nation,'' he said. ``It is time for a
unified effort to liberate Khalistan. We need to support the
leadership which is sincere, capable, committed, and
dedicated to the liberation of Khalistan,'' he said. ``The
Council of Khalistan has led the struggle for the last 15
years and has the above mentioned qualities. We must unite
behind the Council of Khalistan, form a Khalsa Paj Party in
Punjab, Khalistan, and begin a Shantmai Morcha to liberate
Khalistan.''
____________________
WILLIAM KENZO NAKAMURA UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
______
speech of
HON. PATSY T. MINK
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of HR 5302,
to designate the United States Courthouse in Seattle, Washington, as
the ``William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse''.
This designation is a fitting tribute to a great American who
overcame great obstacles to uphold the honor and love he had for
America.
Mr. Nakamura displayed immense courage and bravery on the
battlefield.
On July 4, 1944, Mr. Nakamura crawled within range of an enemy
machine-gun nest and destroyed it with four grenades. Later that
afternoon Mr. Nakamura was killed near Castellina, Italy by a sniper as
he provided cover fire for his retreating platoon. For his bravery and
sacrifice his commanding officer nominated him for the Army's highest
honor, the Medal of Honor.
Mr. Nakamura was a Japanese-American. After the bombing of Pearl
Harbor on December 7, Japanese-Americans were immediately targeted as
the enemy. It did not matter that we were citizens, or had worked hard
alongside other Americans for a better future for ourselves and our
children. Up and down the West coast more than 100,000 Japanese-
Americans, 70,000 of whom were native-born U.S. citizens, were removed
from their homes and communities and placed in internment camps.
On February 1, 1943, President Roosevelt reversed his stance on
Japanese-Americans and declared ``Americanism is not, and never was, a
matter of race or ancestry.'' With this announcement he established the
442nd Regimental Combat Team (RCT), a regiment composed solely of
second generation Japanese-Americans, or Nisei. Mr. Nakamura was one of
the nearly 12,000 Nisei who volunteered, 3,400 were inducted into the
Army.
After nine months of training the 442nd RCT joined the 100th Infantry
Battalion consisting of 1,300 Nisei from Hawaii. During seven major
European campaigns the 442nd and 100th received 9,486 Purple Hearts,
18,143 individual decorations, and 21 Congressional Medals of Honor.
The 442nd became the most highly decorated military unit in U.S.
history.
The Medal of Honor that Mr. Nakamura and other soldiers of the 442nd
RCT were nominated for were not officially awarded. It took fifty-six
years for the government to award Mr. Nakamura his Medal of Honor. Only
seven honorees were alive to receive their award in June 2000.
By designating the United States Courthouse in Seattle, Washington,
as the ``William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse'' we
acknowledge the courage and the sacrifice made by Mr. Nakamura.
I thank this House for the recognition you have bestowed on this
great American who never once doubted his country or his love for it,
even from behind the barbed wire of a concentration camp.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE ARIZONA WATER SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2000
______
HON. J.D. HAYWORTH
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the
Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2000 with the entire Arizona House
delegation. This is landmark legislation which, as stated in the
delegation's introductory statement, will resolve long-standing issues
pertaining to the repayment obligations of the state of Arizona for the
construction of the Central Arizona Project (CAP). In addition, it will
address allocation of remaining CAP water to satisfy the water rights
claims of a number of Arizona tribes, including the Gila River Indian
Community and the Tohono O'odham Nation. This is an issue that is
important to the state of Arizona, as evidenced by the delegation's
full support. In fact, the principal purpose of introducing this
legislation at this time is to encourage all parties involved to
expeditiously resolve the few remaining issues of the agreement, and to
show the Arizona delegation's full commitment to the issue. We
fervently hope that all the parties will work in the coming months to
wrap up the last remanining details of the settlement.
Some of these issues also reflect a delicate balance. For example,
the issue of lands acquired by the tribes after the settlement date and
the procedures with which the tribes bring these lands into ``trust''
is an issue that is still being negotiated. It is my understanding that
although the tribes have been working closely with the other parties,
and that a tremendous amount of work has already been accomplished, the
final details have yet to be agreed
[[Page 24692]]
upon. All of Indian Country will be looking to this provision because
it could very well affect all future Native American water and land
dispute settlements.
Another critical component of the bill is the use of the settlement
funds. It is important that we come to an agreement with the affected
Arizona tribes on how best to utilize the funds associated with the
settlement. I know that the Gila River Indian Community has worked hard
to come to a consensus on this issue, and I hope we will be able to put
this issue to rest prior to the start of the 107th Congress. These are
important and difficult issues that still need to be finalized, but I
am extremely encouraged that all the parties are so close to an
agreement. I commend all the parties involved not only for their
perseverance, but more importantly, their willingness to negotiate
their differences for the benefit of all Arizonans.
Along with this intoductory statement, I am also including a
statement from the Arizona congressional delegation in support of this
legislation and a letter from Governor Hull expressing her support for
this bill. I am happy to sponsor this bill and look forward to enacting
legislation on this issue early in the 107th Congress.
STATEMENT OF THE ARIZONA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION REGARDING THE ARIZONA
WATER SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 24, 2000.
We are pleased to announce that legislation was introduced
today to resolve issues relating to the repayment obligations
of the State of Arizona for construction of the Central
Arizona Project (CAP), allocation of remaining CAP water
(including the use of nearly 200,000 acre-feet of water to
satisfy the water rights claims of the Gila River Indian
Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and other Arizona
Indian tribes), and other issues, including final settlement
of all claims to waters of the Gila River and its
tributaries.
Legislation is needed to codify several aspects of the
settlement of these various water related issues. Although
not all water users have reached agreement on all issues,
negotiations are continuing at a rapid pace. We, therefore,
expect that all of the remaining differences will be resolved
and settlement agreements will be signed by the parties in
the next two months. When final agreements are signed, we
intend to introduce the final version of legislation to
effectuate those settlements. In the meantime, we have
introduced this first version of legislation to demonstrate
our commitment to the settlement process, and to allow all
interested parties the time to suggest changes to precisely
reflect the terms of the settlement.
One of the purposes of this legislation is to implement the
settlement (in lieu of adjudication) of all of the water
rights claims to the Gila River and its tributaries. Once
this legislation is enacted, and the presiding judge approves
the settlement agreement, water litigation over rights to the
waters of the Gila River, which has been ongoing since 1978,
will be terminated. Resolution of this case, and of other
issues addressed in the settlement agreements, will help to
ensure that there is a more stable and certain water supply
for the various water users. This is a significant benefit to
the citizens of Arizona, the tribes, and the United States.
The legislation will also resolve several financial issues.
For example, it will effectuate a settlement of litigation
between the state and federal government over the state's
repayment obligation for construction of the Central Arizona
Project. It also amends the Colorado River Basin Project Act
of 1968 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand
funds from the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund to
construct irrigation distribution systems to deliver CAP
water to the Gila River Indian Community and other CAP water
users.
In addition, this legislation authorizes the reallocation
of 65,647 acre-feet of CAP water for use by Arizona
communities, and the reallocation of nearly 200,000 acre-feet
for the settlement of Indian water claims.
We compliment the parties for their hard work and their
commitment to resolving these difficult and sometimes
contentious issues. We hope and expect that all parties will
continue to negotiate in good faith to resolve the remaining
issues.
Since the parties have not yet completed their
negotiations, this bill is, of necessity, also a work in
progress. We point out that some of the provisions in the
bill may have to be modified (e.g. Section 207 has not been
totally agreed to by all interested parties), and other
provisions will have to be added (e.g., resolution of
conflicts involving water users in the Upper Gila Valley, the
City of Safford, and the San Carlos Apache Tribe).
We note that, while Interior staff have been active in the
ongoing negotiations and have served on the committees
drafting the bill, the Department of the Interior has not had
an opportunity to vet some sections of this draft prior to
its introduction. One reason for introducing this bill now
rather than waiting until the final settlement agreement has
been completed, is to enable Secretary Babbitt to analyze and
comment upon the draft legislation before he leaves office in
January. Secretary Babbitt has been a major participant in
the negotiations over the last two years; and his input into
the final legislation will be very important to the
successful conclusion of the process.
In summary, our intention is to initiate public discussion
of the issues and elicit constructive comments on this bill.
Our plan is to reintroduce a modified form of this bill early
in the 107th Congress. We expect that the necessary
settlement agreements will be complete and signed prior to
reintroduction. In relation to the Gila River Indian
Community Settlement, we expect that all of the participants
named in the attached list will support the settlement
agreement, and the implementing legislation, Section 213 has
been left open for additional parties to the agreement.
We hope that agreement can be reached to settle the claims
of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. Title IV has been left open
for this purpose. However, if the San Carlos Tribe cannot
reach agreement with the other parties, including the United
States, it is our intention to proceed without Title IV. A
separate San Carlos settlement will have to be pursued at a
later date.
We pledge our continuing effort to work with the parties to
successfully conclude these historic settlements.
John McCain, Bob Stump, Jon Kyl, Jim Kolbe, Ed Pastor,
Matt Salmon, J.D. Hayworth, John Shadegg.
SETTLEMENT PARTICIPANTS
Gila River Indian Community
United States--Department of the Interior; Department of
Justice
State of Arizona/Arizona Department of Water Resources
Central Arizona Water Conservation District
Salt River Project
Roosevelt Water Conservation District
ASARCO
Phelps Dodge
City of Mesa
City of Chandler
City of Scottsdale
City of Peoria
City of Glendale
City of Phoenix
Maricopa Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District
Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District
San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District
Town of Coolidge
Hohokam Irrigation and Drainage District
Gila Valley Irrigation District
Franklin Irrigation District
City of Safford
Town of Kearney
Graham County Utilities
Arizona State Land Department
Arizona Water Company
City of Tempe
Arizona Game and Fish
City of Casa Grande
Town of Gilbert
Town of Florence
Town of Duncan
Buckeye Irrigation Company
Roosevelt Irrigation District
New Magma Irrigation and Drainage District
____
State of Arizona,
Phoenix, AZ, October 11, 2000.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: I commend you for the introduction of the
draft legislation the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2000.
This bill will maintain the momentum toward the completion of
negotiations on difficult water issues concerning the Central
Arizona Project, the Gila River Indian Community, the Tohono
O'odham Nation, and the San Carlos Apache Tribe.
The Central Arizona Project is the lifeblood of Arizona.
Confirming the repayment settlement between the United States
and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District will
benefit all of Arizona's taxpayers. Confirming the agreement
between the Secretary of the Interior and the Arizona
Department of Water Resources on the allocation of CAP water
will provide for Arizona's future.
It is my understanding that when this legislation is
reintroduced in the next congressional session, the parties
will approve the Gila River Indian Community settlement
agreement. The Governor of the State of Arizona has
traditionally been a signatory to Indian water rights
settlements and I expect to be a signatory to the Gila
settlement. However, I want to emphasize that I will only
support a complete settlement of the Gila River Indian
Community claims. For example, the economic well being of the
upper Gila River Valley communities and agricultural
interests is of great interest of the State of Arizona. I
understand that much work remains to resolve these upper
valley isues and I urge all the participants to reach an
agreement as part of the overall settlement.
Again, I commend your efforts to move the process along,
and I look forward to our continued work together on Arizona
water resource issues.
Sincerely,
Jane Dee Hull,
Governor.
____________________
[[Page 24693]]
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
______
speech of
HON. PATSY T. MINK
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
782, the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000. I am delighted that we
are at long last reauthorizing this very popular program that has
helped to improve the lives of America's seniors since it was first
established in 1965, my first year in Congress.
Reauthorization of the Older Americans Act (OAA) is long overdue.
Authorization of programs under OAA expired at the end of fiscal year
1995. Nonetheless, Congress has continued to appropriate funds for OAA
programs. These programs have earned broad bipartisan support.
H.R. 782 contains several provisions that will strengthen the Older
Americans Act, including establishment of the National Caregiver
Program to aid families in caring for frail elders and for grandparents
caring for grandchildren. This program, authorized at $125 million,
provides grants to states for a multifaceted system of supportive
services including information, assistance, counseling, and respite
services.
The bill also provides new demonstration programs on domestic
violence, rural health, computer training, and transportation. H.R. 782
authorizes as permanent two current demonstration programs--the
Eldercare Locator Service and the Pension Rights and Counseling
Program.
These are in addition to the mainstays of the Older Americans Act:
elderly nutrition programs that provide congregate and home-delivered
meals to over 3 million older persons annually; the Senior Community
Service Employment Program, which provides opportunities for part-time
employment in community service activities for unemployed, low-income
older persons; and elder abuse prevention and long-term care ombudsman
programs.
I am very pleased to be given an opportunity to reauthorize this
vital legislation, which makes a tremendous difference in the lives of
our senior citizens.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE TOM EWING ON HIS RETIREMENT FROM CONGRESS
______
speech of
HON. PHILIP M. CRANE
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I have served with Tom Ewing since he was
elected in a special election on July 2, 1991. Tom is one of a handful
of members who serve on four committees: Agriculture; Transportation
and Infrastructure; Science; and Administration. He is also a member of
the President's Export Council. Tom represents the 15th District of
Illinois, which covers the east central portion of our great state.
Before his election to Congress, Tom served 17 years in the Illinois
House of Representatives. He was the Assistant Republican Leader of the
House from 1982 to 1990 and was named Deputy Minority Leader in 1990.
During his tenure in the Illinois General Assembly and as a member of
the U.S. House of Representatives, Tom has received numerous state and
national awards from business, education, environmental, senior
citizens and agricultural organizations. He has been recognized for his
leadership in the areas of crime prevention, welfare reform, economic
growth and health care.
Tom's emphasis on fiscal integrity and personal responsibility has
earned him praise from such groups as the United States Chamber of
Commerce, the 60/Plus Senior Citizens Association, the United Seniors
Association, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and
Americans for Tax Reform. In Congress, Tom has made balancing the
budget, reducing the national debt, preserving Social Security, sending
more money directly to the classroom and healthcare his top priorities.
I know first hand from visiting with farmers in Tom's district that he
has been a stalwart champion of agriculture issues and the opening of
new, foreign markets for United States agriculture products. I want to
wish Tom and his wife Connie all the best as they head toward their
golden years.
____________________
TURN ON THE LIGHTS! MAKE EVERY SCHOOL A COMMUNITY SCHOOL
______
HON. DALE E. KILDEE
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, ``Turn on the Lights! Make Every School a
Community School,'' is the theme of the 19th annual National Community
Education Day to be observed in communities across the country on
Tuesday, November 14, 2000.
Sponsored by the National Community Education Association (NCEA),
this special day was established in 1982 to recognize and promote
strong working partnerships between schools and communities. In my
hometown of Flint, Michigan the day will be celebrated with a Community
Education Breakfast for 250 people representing school districts and
communities across Genesee County. The featured speaker will be John
Windom, the Director of Community Education in St. Louis, Missouri.
Community Education Day in 2000 calls attention to the benefits of
the community school, a school that is open beyond the regular school
day--in the evenings, on the weekends, during the summer--to all
members of the community.
The 20,000 community schools across the country focus on meeting
community needs with community resources. Differing from community to
community, needs range from health and nutrition services, to literacy
training, social services, school-age care, extended day programs,
career retraining, workforce preparation, continuing education, and
recreation opportunities.
Community schools foster community involvement. They are places where
community members can meet to learn, to have fun, to tackle issues.
They provide safe, nurturing environments for children and youth.
Schools can serve their communities beyond the traditional six hour
day and 180-day school year. Located in most neighborhoods, they're
easily accessible, they belong to the public, they have good resources,
and their traditional hours leave lots of time for other uses.
National Community Education Day is co-sponsored by over 35
organizations, including the Alliance for Children and Families, the
Childrens Defense Fund, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the
National PTA, the National Assembly of Health and Human Service
Organizations, and the U.S. Department of Education.
I am pleased to stand before you today to support our community
schools and the fine work being done by the National Center for
Community Education in Flint, Michigan. The contributions that
community education has made to millions of children and families
deserve the recognition of the United States Congress.
____________________
BEVERLY SAN AGUSTIN: GUAM'S 2001 TEACHER OF THE YEAR
______
HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD
of guam
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the winner of
Guam's 2001 Teacher of the Year Award, Beverly San Agustin.
Beverly teaches Social Studies and American Government at Simon
Sanchez High School. Her unique educational and motivational techniques
as well as her desire to reach out to every student have distinguished
her among her hard working colleagues. Her selection was based on
interviews and classroom observations. Beverly also makes extra efforts
to see that her classes are learning to their potential and preparing
themselves for the demands of the 21st century. A 22-year veteran in
the field of education, Beverly's efforts to increase the credibility
of teaching as a profession is designed to entice and encourage a new
generation of students into following her in this most honorable
profession.
As Teacher of the Year, she will be visiting us here in Washington,
D.C. while representing Guam at the National Teacher of the Year
announcement ceremony. In addition, she will also be the island's
representative in a number of Teacher of the Year activities throughout
the 2000-2001 school year. These include Space Camp and the National
Teacher of the Year Forum.
Also worth mentioning are the finalists: Monina Sunga of Vicente
Benavente Middle School, Cheryle Jenson of Price Elementary School,
John Randolph Coffman of P.C. Lujan Elementary School, and Alvaro
Abaday of my alma mater, John F. Kennedy High School. Ms. Jenson, a
first grade teacher, was the runner-up.
[[Page 24694]]
Teachers make great contributions towards shaping our future. They
provide the foundation and support to foster the education of our
children. They help mold and shape students into knowledgeable young
adults. Teachers help students realize their potential for success and
foster self-confidence. They have a personal commitment to help
students become a whole person, equipped with the knowledge, self-
confidence, and respect they need to compete and excel in today's ever
changing world. Tomorrow's leaders are being prepared for their
impending roles in society by today's teachers.
I would like to congratulate this year's Guam finalists and,
especially, the 2001 Teach of the Year, Beverly San Nicolas. I take
great pride in having these individuals counted as my colleagues in the
field of education and I urge them to keep up their excellent work. Si
Yu'os Ma'ase'.
____________________
COMPUTER SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000
______
speech of
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2413, the Computer Security
Enhancement Act of 2000, contains modest but important changes to the
legislation as it was reported by the Committee on Science. These
changes to section 12 and other provisions of the bill were made at the
request of the Committee on Commerce, and, as a result of their
adoption, I have no objection to this bill. I want to thank and commend
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Science Committee,
Representative Bart Gordon, and their staffs, for their courtesy and
cooperation in this matter.
The changes made clear that, as in the case of the Electronic
Signatures Act that recently became law, the Federal Government will
not establish a one-size-fits-all standard for electronic
authentication technology that must be used by government agencies and
those entities that report to them. Federal agencies and their
committees of proper, legislative jurisdiction must be unconstrained in
their ability to see that electronic authentication technologies that
best serve their statutory and regulatory purposes are adopted. As a
result, this legislation only asks that the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) serve as a resource for federal
agencies on electronic authentication technologies, and any guidelines
and standards NIST develops are to be both advisory and, very
importantly, technology-neutral.
In fact, a provision of the bill as it was reported by the Science
Committee would have required NIST to report to Congress within 18
months after enactment, evaluating the extent to which electronic
authentication technology being used by federal agencies conforms to
NIST standards. That provision of the Committee-reported bill as been
deleted. Instead, NIST is only asked to report to Congress concerning
progress federal agencies made and problems they encounter in
implementing electronic authentication technologies. In addition, a new
provision of the bill provides that a study on electronic
authentication technologies to be completed by the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences may not recommend any
single technology for use by government agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Science Committee has focused attention
on an important issue, and I thank them for their hard work. I have no
objection to suspending the rules and passing this legislation.
____________________
AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000
______
speech of
HON. PATSY T. MINK
of hawaii
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1452,
especially subtitle B of title V. The title expands housing assistance
for native Hawaiians by extending to them the same types of federal
housing programs available to American Indians and Alaska natives. The
provision authorizes appropriations for block grants for affordable
housing activities and for loan guarantees for mortgages for owner- and
renter-occupied housing. It authorizes technical assistance in cases
where administrative capacity is lacking. The block grants would be
provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands of the government of the State of
Hawaii.
I thank the Chairman of the Banking Committee [Mr. Leach], the
Ranking Member [Mr. LaFalce], the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee
[Mr. Lazio], and the Ranking Member of Subcommittee [Mr. Frank] and the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Bereuter] for their assistance in
incorporating the provisions for Native Hawaiian housing in the bill.
Passage of this bill is critical because within the last several
years, three studies have documented the housing conditions that
confront Native Hawaiians who reside on the Hawaiian home lands or who
are eligible to reside on the home lands.
In 1992, the National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native,
and Native Hawaiian Housing issued its final report to Congress,
``Building the Future: A Blueprint for Change.'' In its study, the
Commission found that Native Hawaiians had the worst housing conditions
in the State of Hawaii and the highest percentage of homelessness,
representing over 30 percent of the State's homeless population.
In 1995, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued
a report entitled, ``Housing Problems and Needs of Native Hawaiians.''
This report contained the alarming conclusion that Native Hawaiians
experience the highest percentage of housing problems in the nation--49
percent--higher than that of American Indians and Alaska Natives
residing on reservations (44 percent) and substantially higher than
that of all U.S. households (27 percent). The report also concluded
that the percentage of overcrowding within the Native Hawaiian
population is 36 percent compared to 3 percent for all other U.S.
households.
Also, in 1995, the Hawaii State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
published a Beneficiary Needs Study as a result of research conducted
by an independent research group. This study found that among the
Native Hawaiians population, the needs of Native Hawaiians eligible to
reside on the Hawaiian home lands are the most severe. 95 percent of
home lands applicants (16,000) were in need of housing, with one-half
of those applicant households facing overcrowding and one-third paying
more than 30 percent of their income for shelter.
S. 1452 will provide eligible low-income Native Hawaiians access of
Federal housing programs that provide assistance to low-income
families. Currently, those Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside
on Hawaiian home lands but who do not qualify for private mortgage
loans, are unable to access such Federal assistance.
I look forward to enactment to the bill because it is so important to
the native people of Hawaii.
____________________
HONORING CAROL BEESE OF BARRINGTON, ILLINOIS
______
HON. PHILIP M. CRANE
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a good friend, Carol
Beese, of Barrington, Illinois. Carol is a community leader without
equal, and is retiring from the Barrington Area Chamber of Commerce
after 32 years of service.
Carol became involved in the Barrington Area Chamber of Commerce many
years ago. A true professional, her career in public service as a
leader is rarely equaled. As President of the Chamber of Commerce,
Carol has built the organization into one of the most energetic and
engaged Chambers in the State of Illinois. She has been both dedicated
and adamant with regard to the issues facing Chamber members, and is
active as liaison between local businesses and Village officials.
She is truly deserving of this tribute, and I am certain she will
remain committed to serving the Barrington community for many years to
come.
____________________
HONORING FLINT, MI OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
______
HON. DALE E. KILDEE
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you to call attention to an
event taking place in my hometown of Flint, Michigan. Today, civic and
community leaders will gather to mark the official relocation of the
Social Security Administration's Flint Office of Hearings and Appeals
to 300 W. Second Street.
[[Page 24695]]
Last year, the Flint Office of Hearings and Appeals celebrated its
25th Anniversary. Since 1974, the office has existed in the downtown
business district, providing an accessible service for thousands of
individuals. The office provides a public service not only to residents
of Flint, but also to Ann Arbor, Bay City, Saginaw, West Branch,
Alpena, and many other surrounding communities. Staffed by three
Administrative Law Judges, a Senior Administrative Law Judge, and 25
loyal staff members, the office is one of the Social Security
Administration's ten most productive offices nationally. During the
2000 fiscal year, the Flint OHA processed 1,994 dispositions.
I would also like to recognize Paul C. Lillios, Regional Chief
Administrative Law Judge for Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Judge Lillios will be in attendance to
officiate the ceremony. His presence is proof of the SSA's commitment
to the city, and its pledge to implement reform that will prove
beneficial to its customers.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I consider it both my duty and
my privilege to work to improve the quality of life for our citizens. I
am glad that one person who shares this sentiment is Kenneth Apfel, the
Commissioner of Social Security. He has diligently worked to ensure
that the offices under his care maintain a high standard of
productivity. I am pleased that the Flint OHA is one such office that
has lived up to this ideal. I ask my fellow Members of Congress to join
me in recognizing the opening of the new OHA office, and the beginning
of a new era in public service.
____________________
BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
______
HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD
of guam
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness
Month, I rise in support of all of the women and families across this
nation who have been affected by or are at risk of breast cancer.
Breast cancer is a serious health concern for all women. Besides skin
cancer, more women in the United States are diagnosed with breast
cancer than any other cancer each year. One in nine American women will
be diagnosed with breast cancer during her lifetime, and about 40,800
will die from this disease during this year alone.
All women are at risk. Two-thirds of women with breast cancer have no
family history of the disease or show other risk factors. Although
there is a greater chance of incidence in women over 50 years old,
breast cancer can occur at any age. White women are more likely to
develop breast cancer than other women, however women of all races can
be affected. For example, Asian Pacific Americans have a rate of 72.6
incidences per 100,000 people, and Hispanics have a rate of 69.4 of
incidences per 100,000 people.
Such facts and figures illustrate the widespread severity of this
issue, and I commend the many local and national organizations who have
dedicated their time and efforts in the fight against breast cancer.
Many organizations are active in developing programs to raise awareness
on breast cancer, conducting extensive research, organizing programs
and support groups for breast cancer patients and families, performing
community services and volunteer work, and compiling and distributing
information. With the help of such efforts, women have detected breast
cancer earlier through monthly breast exams and annual mammograms.
Currently, there are two million breast cancer survivors in the United
States.
I urge my colleagues to join the battle against breast cancer and
support initiatives that help women across our nation face the
challenges of this deadly disease. Therefore, I recognize Breast Cancer
Awareness Month for all of the mothers, sisters, and daughters,
families, and friends across the nation who have been affected by or
are at risk of breast cancer, and I pay tribute to those who have
passed on due to this disease.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE BASIC ACCESS TO SECURE INSURANCE COVERAGE (BASIC)
HEALTH PLAN ACT
______
HON. JOHN D. DINGELL
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Basic Access to
Secure Insurance Coverage Health Plan (BASIC) Act which builds on
existing health insurance programs to provide all uninsured Americans,
regardless of age or family status, the opportunity to get health
insurance. The BASIC plan would create a universal guarantee for health
insurance for all Americans.
While we are experiencing unprecedented prosperity and a strong
economy, yet there are still 43 million of Americans who are uninsured.
Being uninsured is not a ``Washington problem.'' It is a human problem,
as those 43 million people understand. In any given year, one-third of
the uninsured go without needed medical care. Eight million uninsured
Americans fail to take medication their doctors prescribe, because they
cannot afford to fill the prescription. A new study published this
month in the Journal of the American Medical Association confirms the
serious health consequences of lacking insurance. Long-term and short-
term uninsured adults were more likely than insured adults to face cost
barriers to care and forgo needed care.
Lack of health insurance can have serious financial consequences as
well. An uninsured family is exposed to financial disaster in the event
of serious illness. Unpaid medical bills account for 200,000
bankruptcies annually. Over 9 million families spend more than one
fifth of their total income on medical costs.
The BASIC Health Plan Act builds on two successful federal-state
health insurance programs: Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance
Program (CHIP). The BASIC plan would extend these programs to all
individuals and families with income up to 300% of the poverty level
through a multi-year phase in. Other uninsured individuals may buy in
to the program by paying the cost through premiums. Since nearly three-
fourths of the uninsured have family incomes below 300 percent of the
poverty level, this expansion is targeted at those who need it.
This bill also includes a number of provisions to ensure that
families can easily access health insurance through the BASIC program.
First, it simplifies and streamlines the application and enrollment
process for these programs to make them seamless. Second, the bill
would make it easier for states to identify and enroll families in
coverage. Third, the bill improves upon the CHIP benefit package to
guarantee all children receive adequate preventive services and
treatment.
Additionally, since 82 percent of the uninsured are workers or
dependents of workers, this bill seeks to use families' connection to
employment to facilitate access to health insurance coverage. Employers
will not be required to provide coverage or contribute to the cost of
coverage, although they may if they so wish. However, they will be
required to facilitate access to the coverage by withholding any
required premium contributions from the employee's periodic pay, just
like they do for taxes today.
I believe the BASIC Health Plan Act is an excellent starting point
for providing health care coverage for every American. Over the past
few years, Congress has lost focus on addressing this pressing issue.
This time is upon us again to place health insurance at the forefront
of our agenda.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and the
Senate on the BASIC Health Plan Act to help provide health insurance
coverage to many of the millions of Americans who are currently without
health insurance.
Need for Legislation and Summary of the ``BASIC'' Health Program:
Universal Access to Affordable Quality Health Insurance
America is the only industrial country in the world, except
South Africa, that does not guarantee health care for all its
citizens. The number of uninsured declined last year for the
first time in more than a decade--but 43 million Americans
remain uninsured, and any slowdown in the economy is likely
to send the number up again. The vast majority of the
uninsured are workers or dependents of workers. The
consequences of being uninsured go far beyond vulnerability
to catastrophic medical costs. The uninsured often lack
timely access to quality health care, especially preventive
care. They suffer unnecessary illness and even death because
they have no coverage.
Growth in the Uninsured
The number of the uninsured has grown from 32 million in
1987 to 43 million this year. Except for a brief pause in
1993 and 1994, the number of uninsured has consistently
increased by a million or more each year until this year.
Even these figures understate the number of the uninsured.
During the course of a year, 70 million Americans will be
uninsured for an extended period of time.
Characteristics of the Uninsured
The vast majority of privately insured Americans--161
million citizens under 65--receive coverage on the job as
workers or
[[Page 24696]]
members of their families. But the uninsured are also
overwhelmingly workers or their dependents. Eighty-two
percent of those without insurance are employees or family
members of employees. Of these uninsured workers, most are
members of families with at least one person working full-
time.
Most uninsured workers are uninsured because their employer
either does not offer coverage, or because they are not
eligible for the coverage offered. Seventy percent of
uninsured workers are in firms where no coverage is offered.
Eighteen percent are in firms that offer coverage, but they
are not eligible for it, usually because they are part-time
workers or have not been employed by the firm long enough to
qualify for coverage. Only 12% of uninsured workers are
offered coverage and decline.
The uninsured are predominantly low and moderate income
persons. Almost 25 percent are poor (income of $8,501 or less
for a single individual; $13,290 or less for a family of
three). Twenty-eight percent have incomes between 100 and 200
percent of poverty. Eighteen percent have incomes between 200
and 300 percent of poverty. Almost three-fourths have incomes
below 300 percent of poverty.
Consequences of Being Uninsured
An uninsured family is exposed to financial disaster in the
event of serious illness. Unpaid medical bills account for
200,000 bankruptcies annually. Over 9 million families spend
more than one fifth of their total income on medical costs.
The health consequences of being uninsured are often as
devastating as the economic costs:
In any given year, one-third of the uninsured go without
needed medical care.
Eight million uninsured Americans fail to take medication
their doctors prescribe, because they cannot afford to fill
the prescription.
Thirty-two thousand Americans with heart disease go without
life-saving and life-enhancing bypass surgery or angioplasty,
because they are uninsured.
Twenty-seven thousand uninsured women are diagnosed with
breast cancer each year. They are twice as likely as insured
women not to receive medical treatment until their cancer has
already spread in their bodies. As a result, they are 50%
more likely to die of the disease.
The tragic bottom line is that 83,000 Americans die every
year because they have no insurance. Being uninsured is the
seventh leading cause of death in America. Our failure to
provide health insurance for every citizen kills more people
than kidney disease, liver disease, and AIDS combined.
THE PROPOSAL: SUMMARY OF BASIC ACCESS TO SECURE INSURANCE COVERAGE
HEALTH PLAN (``BASIC'' HEALTH PLAN)
Overview
The BASIC program builds on two successful federal-state
health insurance programs: Medicaid and the Child Health
Insurance Program (CHIP). It also incorporates a number of
elements from Vice-President Gore's proposal to improve and
expand upon insurance coverage under CHIP and Medicaid to the
parents of eligible children. The BASIC plan extends the
availability of subsidized coverage to all uninsured low and
moderate income Americans, regardless of age or family
status. It guarantees the availability of coverage in every
state for every uninsured person, and includes provisions to
encourage enrollment by those who are eligible. The plan also
allows other uninsured individuals to buy-in to the program
by paying the full premium.
Key Provisions
Phase I: Coverage for Children and Parents--Expansion of CHIP and
Medicaid
Eligibility levels are raised to 300% of poverty ($42,450
for a family of three) for all uninsured children over 2
years.
Coverage is made available to all uninsured parents of
enrolled children.
Coverage is made available to legal immigrant children, and
their parents.
The minimum benefit package under CHIP for children is
improved by adding eye-glasses, hearing aids, and medically
necessary rehabilitative services for disabled or
developmentally delayed children.
Additional steps are established to encourage enrollment of
eligible children and their parents, including presumptive
eligibility, qualification for at least twelve months, and
simplified application forms.
The system of capped state allotments under CHIP is
eliminated and federal matching funds are made available for
all eligible persons enrolled in the program.
Phase II: Coverage for the Remaining Uninsured
Subsidized coverage is made available for the remaining
uninsured with incomes below 300% of the poverty level.
Coverage is phased in by income levels, beginning with those
below 50% of the poverty level in the third year of the
program, rising to 300% of the poverty level in the ninth
year.
Other uninsured individuals above 300% of poverty may buy-
in to the program by paying the cost through premiums.
Responsibility of Employers
Eighty-two percent of the uninsured are workers or
dependents of workers. Employers will not be required to
provide coverage or contribute to the cost of coverage--but
they will be required to offer their uninsured employees an
opportunity to enroll in the program and agree to facilitate
the coverage by withholding any required premium
contributions from the employee's periodic pay.
Cost
Preliminary estimates of similar proposals indicate that
the federal cost will be $200-300 billion over the next ten
years, beyond the amount already budgeted for expansions of
coverage under the current CHIP program.
____________________
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
______
HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD
of guam
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of Domestic Violence
Awareness Month, and on behalf of the victims and families affected by
domestic violence, I rise to speak on this rapidly growing and
widespread health concern. Domestic violence involves serious physical,
sexual and psychological consequences not only for women, but for
children and entire families. It affects our entire nation and cuts
across all lines of race, age, socioeconomic status, sexual
orientation, and religion. Not only does domestic violence include
spouse or partner abuse and woman battering, it also involves child
abuse, elder abuse, and violence between roommates.
The devastating statistics demonstrates the urgency of this matter.
Every year, 3 to 4 million women are beaten by male partners. Every 21
days, a woman is killed by domestic violence, and every 15 seconds, a
domestic violence act occurs somewhere in the U.S. This means that
there are over 2.5 million victims of domestic violence per year.
Almost 2 out of 3 females from this group have been attacked by a
family member or acquaintance. In addition, more than 53 percent of
male abusers beat their children, and 32 out of 1,000 people over age
65 experience elder abuse.
Domestic violence not only affects the victim but also affects
families, relatives, and unborn children. While victims are traumatized
and left with a sense of vulnerability and helplessness, the over 3
million children who witness acts of domestic violence display
emotional and behavorial disturbances. Also, pregnant women who are
victims of physical abuse have greater chance of miscarriage.
Unfortunately, domestic violence involves victims from all walks of
life and all geographic locations. In Guam, of the 2,090 violent
offenses reported to the Guam Police Department, 661 arrests were made
for family violence. In 1999, the Guam Child Protective Services
received 1,908 referrals, and between 1997 and 1999, the Guam Adult
Protective Services received 907 referrals for the elderly and persons
with disabilities.
Such violence should not be tolerated. Every woman, man, and child
has the right to a healthy and safe environment. Numerous national and
state organizations have contributed to efforts in raising awareness,
conducting programs encouraging preventive mechanisms, providing
counseling services, and building centers or shelters for victims and
their families.
In recognition of this growing concern and the need to address this
issue, October has been declared ``Family Violence Awareness Month'' by
the Governor of Guam. It has included a Silent Witness Ceremony in
honor of domestic violence victims, a Hands Across Guam Rally for
island wide community outreach, a Family Violence Conference for the
general public and professional staff, and a Poster Exhibition for
Elementary Schools including children's artwork on family and love.
Guam has also benefitted from the $300 million in ``STOP (Services,
Training, Officers and Prosecution) Violence Against Women'' grant
funds, which were awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice's Violence
Against Women Office to 4,715 grant recipients nationwide. Of these
funds, 51 grants were awarded to agencies and organizations in Guam,
totaling more than $2.5 million.
Domestic violence is a widespread and growing problem needing urgent
and constant attention. We must all work together so that women,
children, and families can live in a safe and nurturing home
environment. I will continually support this issue for all victims of
domestic violence and for the healthy and safe environment of our
entire Nation.
____________________
[[Page 24697]]
INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO RENAME ``MEDICARE-
+CHOICE'' AS ``MEDICARE-NO-CHOICE''
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, sometimes a lie is repeated so often, that
people forget what a falsehood it is.
For years, people who want to privatize Medicare have been saying
that joining a managed care plan--an HMO--will give seniors more
choice. In 1997, they even renamed the whole HMO program,
``Medicare+Choice,'' pronounced Medicare Plus Choice.
What a lie.
In traditional, fee-for-service Medicare, you have total freedom of
choice. One of my constituents in Medicare from Fremont, California can
decide to go to Baltimore's Johns Hopkins, which US News consistently
rates as the Nation's best hospital, and Medicare will pay.
But when you join a Medicare+Choice HMO, all of a sudden you are
limited in the hospitals you can go to and the doctors you can see that
the HMO and Medicare will pay for.
So Medicare+Choice really isn't ``more choice.'' More HMOs simply
mean ``more choices of plans that limit your choice of doctors and
hospitals.''
Therefore, let's be honest: to stop the lie and make it clear what
managed care is all about, I am today introducing a bill that says, in
its entirety,
Strike the words `Medicare+Choice' wherever it appears in
the law, and substitute the words `Medicare-No-Choice'.
This name change may seem like a silly idea at first blush, but there
is a good reason for it. The current name gives the impression that you
are getting more than you would in traditional Medicare. All too often,
that is not the case. The reality is that seniors are being duped by
HMOs each and every day into joining plans that offer the world and
then take most of those benefits away year by year--if they even remain
in the program at all.
``Medicare-No-Choice''--this name change would give Medicare
beneficiaries pause and might cause them to look at the details of the
plan more than is currently the case. And, Mr. Speaker, that is not a
silly change at all.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MARK GREEN
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to vote on the
following measures yesterday.
On roll No. 541--H. Res. 634 (Rule on H.R. 4656), if I had been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
On roll No. 542--H. Con. Res. 414 (Regarding establishment of
representative government in Afghanistan), if I had been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
On roll No. 543--H.R. 4271--National Science Education Act, if I had
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
HAIL THE VETERAN
______
HON. MICHAEL BILIRAKIS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, as Veterans' Day approaches, I wanted to
share a poem which was written by one of my constituents, Charlie
Reese, with my colleagues.
Hail the Veteran--whose noble deeds,
Nurtured Liberty's growing seeds,
Soldier, Sailor, airman, grunt,
Who held this Nation's battle fronts.
These selfless people who paid the price,
With years or life in sacrifice.
In war or peace they joined the ranks.
Hail the Veteran--and give them thanks.
Hail the Veteran--whose heroic duty,
Helped preserve this Nation's beauty,
Who came to their great country's aid,
With dedication that will never fade.
In barracks or bulwarks, on sea or soil,
Our freedom protected because of their toil.
The campaigns and marches and endless drills--
Hail the Veteran--for their mighty will.
Who through the years answered the call,
Who soared and swam and stood and crawled.
Who in our history shall ever stand tall,
Hail the Veteran--they gave their all.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONCURRENCE BY HOUSE WITH AMENDMENT IN SENATE AMENDMENT
TO H.R. 4868, TARIFF SUSPENSION AND TRADE ACT OF 2000
______
speech of
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that a section of H.R.
4868 may ease the process in which gum arabic from Sudan may be
imported into the United States.
The President imposed comprehensive sanctions against Sudan because
of its horrible human rights record, sponsorship of terrorism, and
implication in the assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak, under Executive Order 13067, on November 3, 1997.
With the events of the past few weeks, including the bombing of the
U.S.S. Cole, this Congress should not be weakening or adjusting the
sanctions in place on Sudan. We have reports that Osama bin Laden has
been involved in and may still have a role in the gum arabic industry
in Sudan. It has also been reported that bin Laden could be a prime
suspect in masterminding the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. We do know
that he has been implicated in the attacks on two U.S. embassies in
Africa.
In short, this is a horrible time for Congress and for the
Administration to weaken our resolve on sanctions against Sudan.
____________________
LACK OF HEALTH INSURANCE BANKRUPTS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the record of the 106th Congress on major
health care policy issues--Medicare prescription drug coverage, managed
care reform, and extension of coverage to the 44 million Americans who
lack it--is appalling. Our failure to enact legislation that provides
baseline coverage for all of our citizens is not simply that emergency
rooms are overcrowded and public health clinics are overflowing. Our
lack of a guaranteed health care safety net indirectly plunges millions
into bankruptcy and financial ruin who, once sick, cannot afford to pay
for their high medical treatment costs out-of-pocket.
This piercing fact is highlighted in a column that was published in
the Philadelphia Inquirer on Oct. 8. Health care economist Uwe
Reinhardt points out the fallacy of self-reliance when it comes to
health insurance. I submit the following article in the Congressional
Record.
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 8, 2000]
Issue No. 1: Health-Care System Wanted
(By Uwe Reinhardt)
Several years ago, in a fit of compassion, New York Mayor
Rudy Giuliani appointed former Republican Mayor John Lindsay
to two no-show municipal jobs, solely to provide the latter
with city-financed insurance coverage for health care not
covered by Medicare. Lindsay, after several strokes and with
Parkinson's disease, was facing out-of-pocket outlays for
health care that had begun to strain his finances.
Millions of fellow Americans share Lindsay's predicament.
The most recent estimate by the U.S. Bureau of the Census
revealed that about 42 million Americans find themselves
without any health insurance coverage for at least part of
the year. Almost half the uninsured at any time have been
uninsured for more than two years. Many millions more,
including Medicare beneficiaries like John Lindsay, have
shallow insurance coverage.
To be sure, most of the uninsured probably are relatively
healthy. When they do fall seriously ill, they usually
receive critically needed care at nearby hospitals.
Ultimately, the hospital tries to recover the cost of its
``charity care'' from insured patients, but only after first
hounding the uninsured themselves for payment, often with the
help of tough collection agencies. According to survey
research by Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, medical
bills now are the second most frequently cited reason for the
bankruptcy of American families, right behind ``job loss''
and ahead of ``divorce.''
Political leaders in any other industrialized nation would
think it unacceptable nation would think it unacceptable to
force families, stricken by serious illness, to face the
added prospect of bankruptcy. Not so with this nation's
policy-making elite. To illustrate, in their first debate,
neither presidential candidate addressed the problem on his
own. And moderator Jim Lehreer saw no reason to accord the
issue an explicit question. Perhaps all of them surmised
that, in
[[Page 24698]]
these times of economic bounty, their audience would have
little interest in the acute distress of a misfortunate few.
Alas, the economy may not always remain bountiful. If it
doesn't, American consumers, feeling poorer, might tighten
their belts, thereby triggering a consumption-led recession.
With a recession would come layoffs, and with them a loss of
employment-based health insurance. The middle class might
then be reminded once more that it lacks what families in all
other industrialized nations enjoy; universal, permanent
protection against the financial consequences of illness.
Universal coverage could easily be provided in this
country, if only the nation's political elite were willing to
do three things. First, there must be a mandate on every
individual to have at least catastrophic health insurance.
Second, between $60 billion and $100 billion a year would
have to be appropriated to subsidize the health insurance of
low-income families. Third, government regulation would have
to ensure an efficient market for individually purchased
health insurance. That insurance could be private or, should
private insurance fail to meet social needs, public (e.g.,
Medicaid and Medicare). The shelves of the nation's think
tanks bend under the weight of ready-to-go proposals that
could achieve both objectives.
Opponents of such measures are fond of reminding us of this
nation's ``rugged individualism'' and its tradition of
``self-reliance.'' For the most part, it is empty talk. Most
corporate executives, for example, enjoy comprehensive, tax-
sheltered ``social insurance'' paid for by their
corporations, literally until these executives' last day on
earth. Furthermore, the plight of former Mayor Lindsay stands
as a stark warning to all would-be rugged individualists who
believe that self-reliance is the proper solution to this
nation's health-care woes. In the end, even he could not be
protected by our nation's brittle private health-insurance
system. He was saved by what is otherwise decried as ``a
complete government takeover'' of his health-care needs.
A common lament is that the typical college student today
insists on doing well by doing good. Too few of them are said
to heed President John Kennedy's eloquent exhortation to
self-sacrifice: ``Ask not what your country can do for you--
ask what you can do for your country.'' But why would any
American youngster seek to lay out for a country that thinks
nothing of letting its citizens slide into the undignified
status of health-care beggars, and into financial
destitution, simply because serious illness struck? America's
allegedly selfish young have read their country's soul and
are acting accordingly.
____________________
AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000
______
speech of
HON. MARK GREEN
of wisconsin
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House
today considered S. 1452, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act, and
I would like to thank Housing Subcommittee Chairman Rick Lazio for all
of his efforts to open homeownership opportunities to so many American
families.
This bill encompasses many important provisions from H.R. 1776, the
homeownership bill that passed the House overwhelmingly earlier this
year. It also includes important provisions to preserve affordable
housing for seniors, and other low-income and working families.
I would like to mention two provisions that I introduced (H.R. 2860
and H.R. 2931) which were included in H.R. 1776, and now S. 1452.
The first would create a pilot program to assist law enforcement
officers purchase homes in locally designated ``at risk'' areas. The
proposal would allow law enforcement officers to purchase homes with no
downpayment. They must use the property as their primary residence for
at least 3 years, and have 6 months of service. It is modeled after a
pilot program that was conducted in Wisconsin. The Milwaukee pilot was
successful because it offered a ``no downpayment option.'' Seventy-five
percent of those who participated in the program said they did so
because of the no downpayment requirement.
This proposal will not only provide homeownership opportunities for
law enforcement officers who might otherwise not have the money for a
downpayment on a home, but will also deter crime. Criminals will be far
less likely to commit an act of violence if they know a police officer
lives right next door. Finally, this gives control to local officials,
allowing mayors to designate the areas they believe need the most
protection.
My second provision expands on the Section 8 homeownership rule to
make it more accessible to persons with disabilities. This provision
provides incentives for employment and homeownership for the most
underserved group of homeowners in the country. Nationally unemployment
rates among the disabled of working age exceed 70 percent and
homeownership rates at less than 5 percent.
Two of the biggest barriers to homeownership for persons with
disabilities are affordability and accessibility. It costs $20-$40
thousand to customize a home for some disabled individuals. This pilot
program addresses these problems by allowing disabled families making
up to 100 percent of the area median income to qualify to use their
Section 8 voucher for homeownership. The benefit may continue for the
entire term of the mortgage provided they remain eligible for such
assistance. It also requires one or more members of the family to have
achieved employment and participation in a homeownership counseling
program.
While I am very pleased with the outcome of the negotiations on S.
1452, I am concerned at the omission of one provision in particular.
Section 102 of H.R. 1776 requires the federal government to perform a
housing impact analysis before it issues new regulations. This
important provision would give the private sector an opportunity to see
the impacts on housing before a rule is implemented. Hopefully, this
would result in less costly regulations that impede homeownership.
While it was omitted from the final version we considered today, I am
hopeful we can come back to this next year and pass it into law.
S. 1452 will help so many Americans achieve the dream of
homeownership. I am pleased at the House's actions, and am hopeful that
the other body will quickly take up and pass this extremely important
legislation.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MICHAEL BILIRAKIS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, on October 24, 2000, I missed rollcall
votes 541, 542 and 543. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''
on all three votes.
____________________
HONORING DR. ROBIN BEACH
______
HON. SCOTT McINNIS
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to
recognize a remarkable member of the medical community, Dr. Robin
Beach. Her contributions to the citizens of Colorado are immeasurable
and deserve the recognition of this body. I would at this time like to
pay tribute to a truly inspirational and compassionate human being.
Robin began her distinguished career in medicine with an education
almost as impressive as her work in medicine. She received her
undergraduate degree in Zoology from Duke University graduating with
distinction. Robin then went on to receive her M.D. from Duke and her
M.P.H. from the University of California at Berkeley. This impressive
educational background easily prepared her to become the expert in
Pediatrics she is today.
Robin's illustrious career in pediatrics began at the University of
Colorado Medical Center where she completed her residency. She then
went on to work for the University Health Services in Boulder, Colorado
where she served as Chief of Staff and Chief of the Medical Services.
Her expert knowledge of medicine along with her natural ability to lead
has propelled her into leadership roles for many different
organizations within the medical community. She has served the Denver
Health Authority in the capacities, of assistant director of Community
Health Services, and Director of the Westside Medical Center, the
Adolescent Ambulatory Services, and the Westside Teen Clinic.
Robin's career has been one of great distinction and has been full of
many immeasurable contributions to her community. But it is her recent
academic appointment that may rank above all when it comes to her
accomplishments. She is now able to utilize her advanced knowledge of
pediatric medicine to educate future doctors. She is currently a
professor of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine at the University of
Colorado Health Sciences Center. In addition to this great honor she
has also received a number of awards for her work in the medical
community, the Kathleen Ann Mullen Memorial Award and the Adele
Dellenbaugh Hofmann Award both for her work with adolescent medicine.
[[Page 24699]]
Robin is a truly remarkable human being and her contributions, not
only to her community but also to the field of Pediatrics, are
unparalleled. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the State of Colorado and the
US Congress I would like to commend Dr. Beach on her many
accomplishments and wish her the very best as she continues to educate
Colorado's future doctors in the field of Pediatrics.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JIM KOLBE
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, on October 24, 2000 the House debated and
voted on H. Res. 634, ``Providing for the consideration of H.R. 4656,
Lake Tahoe Basin School Site Land Conveyance Act'', H. Con. Res. 414,
``Relating to the Reestablishment of Representative Government in
Afghanistan'', and H.R. 4271, the ``National Science Education Act.''
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 634, (roll
call vote number 541) ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 414 (roll call vote
number 542), and ``aye'' on H.R. 4271 (roll call vote number 543).
____________________
HONORING A FORGOTTEN HERO, SEAMAN ARTHUR REID, JR.
______
HON. DONALD M. PAYNE
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, more than five decades have passed since a
massive explosion at the Port Chicago naval base in California claimed
the life of a courageous young Seaman, Arthur Reid, Jr. and 319 other
servicemen, mostly African Americans. Nearly 400 more were wounded in
the incident.
On October 26, 2000, I will have the privilege of presenting to
Seaman Reid's sister, Margaret Reid Severin, three long overdue
military awards in his behalf--the American Campaign Medal, the Gold
Star Lapel Button, and the World War II Victory Medal. Mrs. Severin was
only 13 at the time she lost her brother, but she has faithfully
honored his memory ever since, despite the fact that the Navy provided
very little information or support following the tragic loss of his
life.
I was pleased to have the opportunity to help secure Seaman Reid's
service records from the National Personnel Records Center in St.
Louis, which confirmed his meritorious military record recommending him
for leadership.
It was through the efforts and outstanding research of Mrs. Severin's
coworker, Ms. Sheri Humphrey, that the story of Seaman Reid came to
light. Ms. Humphrey worked diligently to track down information from
veterans' files which revealed the plight of Seaman Reid and his fellow
servicemen at Port Chicago.
The Port Chicago tragedy has been described as ``America's Dark
Secret'' because of the circumstances surrounding the disaster. It was
on the evening of July 17th, 1944, during World War II, that the
munitions blast occurred. In an era of a segregated military, enlisted
African Americans were relegated to duties separate from those of their
white counterparts. Instead of obtaining ship duty, they were assigned
to load ammunition and explosives on ships at port without the benefit
of proper training for this potentially dangerous responsibility. After
the terrible tragedy, African American servicemen still suffering from
the trauma of the explosion were ordered back to work handling
ammunition at another location. At that point, 258 of them refused that
specific assignment, saying they would take any other duty but that one
in view of their experience. At a racially charged court martial trial,
208 servicemen were given bad conduct discharges and denied three
months' pay. Another 50 were convicted of mutiny, which could have
resulted in the death penalty. Sentences of 8 and 15 years at hard
labor were meted out, but eventually clemency was granted at the
conclusion of the war.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues here in the U.S. House of
Representatives join me in honoring a true World War II hero, Seaman
Arthur Reid, Jr., and in expressing to his sister Margaret Reid Severin
our profound appreciation for his ultimate sacrifice for our country.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF ENSIGN ANDREW TRIPLETT
______
HON. CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING
of mississippi
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, October 25, 2000
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, today I come before the House of
Representatives to honor the life of an outstanding American, and
member of the United States Navy, Ensign Andrew Triplett, originally of
Shuqualak, Mississippi. Ensign Triplett was among the 17 brave sailors
who gave their lives for our country in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole,
on Thursday, October 12, 2000. This attack also injured 33 other
sailors in the harbor of Aden, Yemen.
Andrew Triplett, noted for his quiet, shy nature, grew up near Willow
Grove in Shuqualak, Mississippi, where he attended Reed Elementary
School and in 1987 graduated from Noxubee High School in Macon,
Mississippi. Upon his graduation Andrew Triplett enlisted in the Navy,
where while serving his country he met his wife, Lorrie, a Detroit
native. Just seven years ago, they began their family with the birth of
their first daughter, Andrea, and three years later their second child
Savannah Renee was born. Andrew and Lorrie lived in Virginia Beach,
Virginia and were members of Pleasant Grove Baptist Church.
Successfully moving up the ladder as an enlisted man, Andrew was
accepted for Officers' Candidate School and received his commission as
an officer in April, 1999. On the U.S.S. Cole, he was assigned to the
engineering department, a job that he was said to love. Tragically, it
was the engineering department that suffered the blast damage from the
explosive in the harbor.
For Ensign Andrew Triplett's thirteen years of service to the United
States of America in the United States Navy, and for his life-long
devotion as a son, husband, brother, father and citizen, I pay tribute.
Ensign Triplett was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Ree D. Triplett of
Shuqualak, Mississippi. He is survived by his wife, Lorrie, and his two
little girls, Andrea (age seven) and Savannah Renee (age four); his
parents, Savannah and Ree Triplett of Shuqualak, Mississippi; and his
two brothers, two former servicemen, Theotis Donald (Air Force) and
Wayne (Marine Corps).
Mr. Speaker, I ask our colleagues to join me in remembering this
present day hero, Ensign Andrew Triplett. Our sincere prayers and
thoughts are with the Triplett family at this difficult time, and the
other families who lost loves ones on the U.S.S. Cole.
____________________