[Pages S1884-S1913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2310. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code,
with respect to penalties for licensed firearms dealers; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

firearms dealer penalty flexibility act of 2000

<bullet> Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the
first in a series of several bills I will be proposing to provide law
enforcement with the tools they need to enforce our current gun laws.

Let me be clear--I do believe that our current laws need to be
enhanced. Too many loopholes allow too many criminals to circumvent the
laws already in place. To that end, I will continue to work on
legislation to further restrict criminals' access to deadly firearms.
But it is also clear that we can do better in enforcing the laws
already on the books. As a result, today I am proposing legislation
that will tighten up the enforcement of our current laws. The
legislation I have sent to the desk, the Firearms Dealer Penalty
Flexibility Act of 2000, will provide the Treasury Department, and the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the ability to punish dealers
according to the severity of their crimes.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and I hope the
National Rifle Association is listening, too. It is time for that
organization to stop just talking about enforcing our current gun laws,
and to start supporting legislation to help in that process. So today I
challenge the NRA to support this bill and others like it. For too
long, opponents of gun control have talked about enforcement, while at
the same time working to tie the hands of those that enforce the laws.
It is time to move forward.
Now let me describe just what this legislation would accomplish.
Mr. President, under current law there exists only one penalty for
firearms dealers who violate the law--revocation of their license. If a
dealer violates the law, the ATF is left with only two options--
permanently revoke the dealer's license, or do nothing.
The problem, of course, is that not every violation merits the
permanent revocation of a dealer's license. The current law is like
having the death penalty for every crime--from jaywalking to murder. We
have graduated sanctions in the criminal law because different crimes
merit different punishment.
In most instances, the ATF is understandably reluctant to destroy a
dealer's livelihood--and the dealers know this. As a result, thousands
of violations every year go unpunished.
Last year, ATF conducted 11,234 examinations, and reported 3,863
violations.
Yet only 20 licenses were actually revoked.
Almost 4,000 violations, just 20 revocations.
And this may have actually been the appropriate response. Again, not
every violation is deserving of revocation. Many of these dealers are
simply businessmen, who may have made one or two simple mistakes.
Taking away their livelihood would be inappropriately harsh.
But at the same time, ATF has informed me that there are other
dealers out there who are taking advantage of the current system. These
dealers know that if they commit a violation, they probably won't even
get caught--after all, with more than 100,000 dealers and only a few
hundred inspectors, the odds of catching a dealer in the act are slim.
And even worse than that, these dealers know that even if they are
caught, and even if ATF does discover a violation or even a pattern of
violations, it is very unlikely that anything will be done.
According to ATF, only the most egregious or repeat offenders are
punished.
Mr. President, it was clearly not the intent of Congress when passing
laws to regulate firearms dealers in this country that dealers would be
effectively immune from those laws.
The current situation leaves law enforcement with little choice--if
ATF revokes the license of every dealer that commits a minor violation,
the NRA would be up in arms. But if they do the right thing under
current law and allow dealers to stay in business, they are criticized
for failing to enforce the current law.
Well the bill I propose today would put an end to this quandary, and
allow

[[Page S1885]]

the Treasury Department to impose the proper, proportionate penalties
for the variety of violations currently on the books.

Specifically, this legislation, supported by the Administration,
would do the following:
For willful violations of the law, this legislation would allow the
Treasury Department to suspend or revoke a dealer's license, or to
assess a fine of up to $10,000 per violation;
Those same penalties would be available for any dealer who willfully
transfers armor piercing ammunition;
The legislation allows the Treasury Department to negotiate a
compromise with a dealer at any time;
And the legislation outlines some clear, procedural protections for
dealers--
A right to notice and opportunity for a hearing before any action is
taken, so that the dealer may be made aware of the charges and seek to
avert the action;
A right to written notice of any action taken, including the grounds
upon which the action was based;
A right to a prompt hearing after a penalty is assessed, during which
time the dealer can contest the outcome. This hearing must even be held
at a location convenient to the dealer;
If the second hearing is not fruitful, the dealer has an additional
right to appeal the decision of the Department to federal court, during
which time any action is stayed.
Mr. President, these procedural safeguards prevent an aggressive
agent from pursuing unfair penalties. There are at least three clear
opportunities for an aggrieved dealer to make his or her case,
including the right to appeal any decision to federal court.
As a result, I believe that this bill gives law abiding firearms
dealers every opportunity necessary to protect themselves against
unwarranted claims.
At the same time, this bill provides law enforcement with the variety
of sanctions necessary to force true compliance with the laws already
on the books. No more will rogue dealers flout the law knowing that no
viable recourse is available to law enforcement.
Once this legislation passes, the punishment will finally fit the
crime.
Mr. President, again I challenge the NRA and my colleagues to join me
in moving this bill forward. We cannot continue to allow miscreant gun
dealers to ignore the laws passed by this Congress.<bullet>
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Frist, Mr. Hatch,
Mr. Dodd, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Reed and Mr. Biden):
S. 2311. A bill to revise and extend the Ryan White CARE Act programs
under title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, to improve access to
health care and the quality of health care under such programs, and to
provide for the development of increased capacity to provide health
care and related support services to individuals and families with HIV
disease, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.

ryan white care act amendments of 2000

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my
colleagues today in introducing the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS
Resources and Emergency Act Amendments of 2000; a measure that will
reauthorize a national program of providing primary health care
services for people living with HIV and AIDS. I especially want to
commend Senators Hatch and Kennedy for the leadership they have
provided since the inauguration of the legislation establishing the
Ryan White programs over a decade ago. I also want to commend Senator
Frist whose medical expertise played a critical role in key provisions
of the bill and continues to be an invaluable resource to our efforts
on the range of health issues that come before the Senate. Finally, I
want to acknowledge Senator Enzi's recognition of the growing burden
that AIDS and HIV is having on rural communities throughout the country
and the need to address those gaps in services.

Since its inception in 1990, the Ryan White program has enjoyed broad
bipartisan support. When I looked back to the last time the Ryan White
CARE Act was reauthorized in 1996, I was heartened to see that the
measure had garnered a vote of 97 to 3 on its final passage. I urge my
colleagues to examine this bill we are introducing today and to join me
in working toward its passage.
With this reauthorization, we mark the ten years through which the
Ryan White CARE Act has provided needed health care and support
services to HIV positive people around the country. Titles I and II
have provided much needed relief to cities and states hardest hit by
this disease, while Titles III and IV have had a direct role in
providing healthcare services to underserved communities. Ryan White
program dollars provide the foundation of care so necessary in fighting
this epidemic.
Fortunately, we have experienced significant success over the last
decade, and especially over the last five years. The General Accounting
Office recently released a report that found that CARE Act funds are
reaching the infected groups that have generally been found to be
underserved, including the poor, the uninsured, women, and ethnic
minorities. In fact, these groups form a majority of CARE Act clients
and are being served by the CARE Act in higher proportions than their
representation in the AIDS population. The GAO also found that CARE Act
funds support a wide array of primary care and support services,
including the provision of powerful therapeutic regimens for people
with HIV/AIDS that have dramatically reduced AIDS diagnoses and deaths.
Mr. President, there have also been successes in the reduction of
HIV/AIDS among women, infants and children. During the last
reauthorization, Congressman Coburn and our colleague, Senator Frist,
focused our attention on the needs of women living with HIV/AIDS and
the problems associated with perinatal transmission of HIV. Since then,
the CARE Act has helped to dramatically reduce mother-to-child
transmission through more effective outreach, counseling, and
voluntary testing of mothers at risk for HIV infection. Between 1993
and 1998, perinatal-acquired AIDS cases declined 74% in the U.S. In
this bill, I have continued to support efforts to reach women in need
of care for their HIV disease and have included provisions to ensure
that women, infants and children receive resources in accordance with
the prevalence of the infection among them.

Another key success has been the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. New
therapies and improved systems of care have led to impressive
reductions in the AIDS death rate and the number of new AIDS cases.
From 1996 to 1998, deaths from AIDS dropped 54% while new AIDS cases
have been reduced by 27%. However, these treatments are very expensive,
do not provide a cure, and do not work for everyone.
Much has occurred to change the course of the AIDS epidemic since the
last reauthorization. A whole new class of therapeutic drugs called
anti-retrovirals have been developed and people are living longer and
the rate of increase of the number of new AIDS cases has begun to level
off. AIDS, HIV, the people it infects and families that it has affected
are not in the news today as often as they have been in the past. But
for too many of us, this lack of bad news has created a false sense of
complacency. The epidemic of HIV continues to grow, to infect whole new
groups of people, and to expand both within our urban areas and beyond
to our rural communities.
While the rate of decline in new AIDS cases and AIDS deaths is
leveling off, HIV infection rates continue to rise in many areas;
becoming increasingly prevalent in rural and underserved urban areas;
and also among women, youth, and minority communities. Local and state
healthcare systems face an increasing burden of disease, despite our
success in treating and caring for people living with HIV and AIDS.
Unfortunately, rural and underserved urban areas are often unable to
address the complex medical and support services needs of people with
HIV infection.
The bill being introduced today was developed on a bipartisan basis,
working with other Committee Members, community stakeholders and
elected officials at the state and local levels from whom we sought
input to ensure that we addressed the most important

[[Page S1886]]

problems facing communities of people with HIV infection. Earlier this
month, I held a hearing before the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions to learn whether the program has been successful
and whether it needed to be changed. We received testimony from Ryan
White's mother, Jeanne White, from Surgeon General David Satcher, from
a person living with AIDS, as well as state and local officials
familiar with the importance of this program. I especially want to
commend Dr. Chris Grace of Vermont who testified as to the particular
challenges of providing care to people living with HIV/AIDS in rural,
and sometimes remote, parts of the country. It was clear from our
witnesses' statements that, despite the successes, challenges remain.
To address these challenges, we have developed a bill that will
improve access to care in underserved urban and rural areas. My bill
will double the minimum base funding available to states through the
CARE Act to assist them in developing systems of care for people
struggling with HIV and AIDS. The bill also includes a new supplemental
state grant that will target assistance to rural and underserved areas
to help them address the increasing number of people with HIV/AIDS
living outside of urban areas that receive assistance under Title I of
the Act. Furthermore, these areas will be given preference for direct
care grants and we have strengthened the AIDS Drug Assistance Program
to supplement those states struggling to provide lifesaving drugs to
their HIV/AIDS patients.
We have not changed the unique flexibility of CARE Act programs; it
remains primarily a system of grants to State and local jurisdictions.
States and EMAs will still decide how to best prioritize and address
the healthcare needs of their HIV-positive citizens.
Today, there are few people who can say they have not been touched by
this epidemic. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit with Jeanne
White. We talked about the impact of this disease; about the loved ones
it has taken, and the damage to the lives of those it has left behind--
about the infected, and about the affected. We talked about her son
Ryan, and about my good friend David Curtis of Burlington, Vermont, who
testified before my committee in 1995, but who passed away just last
year. As an advocate of the program and as a person living with AIDS,
David helped me to understand the terrible impact of this disease. Ryan
White and David and countless others, worked long and hard to ensure
that all people affected by AIDS could receive both the care and
compassion they deserve.
The AIDS epidemic, despite our success in developing treatments and
providing systems of care, is still ravaging communities in this
country. This program remains as vital to the public health of this
nation as it was in 1990 and in 1996. As the AIDS epidemic reaches into
rural areas and into underserved urban communities across the country,
this legislation being introduced today will allow us to adapt our care
systems to meet the most urgent needs in the communities hardest hit by
the epidemic.
I intend to see this bill become law this year so that the people
struggling to overcome the challenges of HIV and AIDS continue to
benefit from high quality medical care and access to lifesaving drugs.
We have made incredible progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS and I
want to be sure that every person in America that needs our assistance,
benefits from our tremendous advances.
Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the text of this measure
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2311

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 ``Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) References.--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 Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. References; table of contents.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

Subtitle A--Purpose; Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)

Sec. 101. Duties of planning council, funding priorities, quality
assessment.
Sec. 102. Quality management.
Sec. 103. Funded entities required to have health care relationships.
Sec. 104. Support services required to be health care-related.
Sec. 105. Use of grant funds for early intervention services.
Sec. 106. Replacement of specified fiscal years regarding the sunset on
expedited distribution requirement.
Sec. 107. Hold harmless provision.
Sec. 108. Set-aside for infants, children, and women.

Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)

Sec. 121. State requirements concerning identification of need and
allocation of resources.
Sec. 122. Quality management.
Sec. 123. Funded entities required to have health care referral
relationships.
Sec. 124. Support services required to be health care-related.
Sec. 125. Use of grant funds for early intervention services.
Sec. 126. Authorization of appropriations for HIV-related services for
women and children.
Sec. 127. Repeal of requirement for completed Institute of Medicine
report.
Sec. 130. Supplement grants for certain States.
Sec. 131. Use of treatment funds.
Sec. 132. Increase in minimum allotment.
Sec. 133. Set-aside for infants, children, and women.

Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)

Sec. 141. Amendment of heading; repeal of formula grant program.
Sec. 142. Planning and development grants.
Sec. 143. Authorization of appropriations for categorical grants.
Sec. 144. Administrative expenses ceiling; quality management program.
Sec. 145. Preference for certain areas.

Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)

Sec. 151. Research involving women, infants, children, and youth.
Sec. 152. Limitation on administrative expenses.
Sec. 153. Evaluations and reports.
Sec. 154. Authorization of appropriations for grants under parts A and
B.

Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)

Sec. 161. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Institute of Medicine study.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

Subtitle A--Purpose; Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)

SEC. 101. DUTIES OF PLANNING COUNCIL, FUNDING PRIORITIES,
QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

Section 2602 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-12) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, including providers of housing and
homeless services''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``shall--'' and all that
follows and inserting ``shall have the responsibilities
specified in subsection (d).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Duties of Planning Council.--The planning council
established under subsection (b) shall have the following
duties:
``(1) Priorities for allocation of funds.--The council
shall establish priorities for the allocation of funds within
the eligible area, including how best to meet each such
priority and additional factors that a grantee should
consider in allocating funds under a grant, based on the
following factors:
``(A) The size and demographic characteristics of the
population with HIV disease to be served, including, subject
to subsection (e), the needs of individuals living with HIV
infection who are not receiving HIV-related health services.
``(B) The documented needs of the population with HIV
disease with particular attention being given to disparities
in health services among affected subgroups within the
eligible area.
``(C) The demonstrated or probable cost and outcome
effectiveness of proposed strategies and interventions, to
the extent that data are reasonably available.
``(D) Priorities of the communities with HIV disease for
whom the services are intended.
``(E) The availability of other governmental and non-
governmental resources, including the State medicaid plan
under title XIX of the Social Security Act and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such
Act to cover health care costs of eligible individuals and
families with HIV disease.

[[Page S1887]]

``(F) Capacity development needs resulting from gaps in the
availability of HIV services in historically underserved low-
income communities.
``(2) Comprehensive service delivery plan.--The council
shall develop a comprehensive plan for the organization and
delivery of health and support services described in section
2604. Such plan shall be compatible with any existing State
or local plans regarding the provision of such services to
individuals with HIV disease.
``(3) Assessment of fund allocation efficiency.--The
council shall assess the efficiency of the administrative
mechanism in rapidly allocating funds to the areas of
greatest need within the eligible area.
``(4) Statewide statement of need.--The council shall
participate in the development of the Statewide coordinated
statement of need as initiated by the State public health
agency responsible for administering grants under part B.
``(5) Coordination with other federal grantees.--The
council shall coordinate with Federal grantees providing HIV-
related services within the eligible area.
``(6) Community participation.--The council shall establish
methods for obtaining input on community needs and priorities
which may include public meetings, conducting focus groups,
and convening ad-hoc panels.
``(e) Process for Establishing Allocation Priorities.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the date
of enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000,
the Secretary shall--
``(A) consult with eligible metropolitan areas, affected
communities, experts, and other appropriate individuals and
entities, to develop epidemiologic measures for establishing
the number of individuals living with HIV disease who are not
receiving HIV-related health services; and
``(B) provide advice and technical assistance to planning
councils with respect to the process for establishing
priorities for the allocation of funds under subsection
(d)(1).
``(2) Exception.--Grantees under subsection (d)(1)(A) shall
not be required to establish priorities for individuals not
in care until epidemiologic measures are developed under
paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 102. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

(a) Funds Available for Quality Management.--Section 2604
(42 U.S.C. 300ff-14) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Quality Management.--
``(1) Requirement.--The chief elected official of an
eligible area that receives a grant under this part shall
provide for the establishment of a quality management program
to assess the extent to which medical services provided to
patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent
Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV
disease and related opportunistic infection and to develop
strategies for improvements in the access to and quality of
medical services.
``(2) Use of funds.--From amounts received under a grant
awarded under this part, the chief elected official of an
eligible area may use, for activities associated with its
quality management program, not more than the lesser of--
``(A) 5 percent of amounts received under the grant; or
``(B) $3,000,000.''.
(b) Quality Management Required for Eligibility for
Grants.--Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as
paragraphs (5) through (8), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) that the chief elected official of the eligible area
will satisfy all requirements under section 2604(c);''.

SEC. 103. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE
RELATIONSHIPS.

(a) Use of Amounts.--Section 2604(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
14(d)(1)) (as so redesignated by section 102(a)) is amended
by inserting ``and the State Children's Health Insurance
Program under title XXI of such Act'' after ``Social Security
Act''.
(b) Applications.--Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a))
is amended by inserting after paragraph (3), as added by
section 102(b), the following:
``(4) that funded entities within the eligible area that
receive funds under a grant under section 2601(a) shall
maintain appropriate relationships with entities in the area
served that constitute key points of access to the health
care system for individuals with HIV disease (including
emergency rooms, substance abuse treatment programs,
detoxification centers, adult and juvenile detention
facilities, sexually transmitted disease clinics, HIV
counseling and testing sites, and homeless shelters) and
other entities under section 2652(a) for the purpose of
facilitating early intervention for individuals newly
diagnosed with HIV disease and individuals knowledgeable of
their status but not in care;''.

SEC. 104. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
RELATED.

(a) In General.--Section 2604(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
14(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``HIV-related--'' and inserting ``HIV-related services, as
follows:'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``outpatient'' and all that follows through
``substance abuse treatment and'' and inserting the
following: ``Outpatient health services.--Outpatient and
ambulatory health services, including substance abuse
treatment,''; and
(B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) inpatient case
management'' and inserting ``(C) Inpatient case management
services.--Inpatient case management''; and
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Outpatient support services.--Outpatient and
ambulatory support services (including case management), to
the extent that such services facilitate, enhance, support,
or sustain the delivery, continuity, or benefits of health
services for individuals and families with HIV disease.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Application Requirements.--
Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)), as amended by
section 102(b), is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated), by striking
``and'' at the end thereof;
(2) in paragraph (7) (as so redesignated), by striking the
period and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) that the eligible area has procedures in place to
ensure that services provided with funds received under this
part meet the criteria specified in section 2604(b)(1).''.

SEC. 105. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Section 2604(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
14(b)(1)), as amended by section 104(a), is further amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Early intervention services.--Early intervention
services as described in section 2651(b)(2), with follow-
through referral, provided for the purpose of facilitating
the access of individuals receiving the services to HIV-
related health services, but only if the entity providing
such services--
``(i)(I) is receiving funds under subparagraph (A) or (C);
or
``(II) is an entity constituting a point of access to
services, as described in paragraph (2)(C), that maintains a
relationship with an entity described in subclause (I) and
that is serving individuals at elevated risk of HIV disease;
and
``(ii) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the chief
elected official that no other Federal, State, or local funds
are available for the early intervention services the entity
will provide with funds received under this paragraph.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Application Requirements.--
Section 2605(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``services to
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``services for
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''.

SEC. 106. REPLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED FISCAL YEARS REGARDING THE
SUNSET ON EXPEDITED DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

Section 2603(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000''
and inserting ``for a fiscal year''.

SEC. 107. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.

Section 2603(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(4)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) Limitations.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to each of fiscal years
2001 through 2005, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount
of a grant made to an eligible area under paragraph (2) for
such a fiscal year is not less than an amount equal to 98
percent of the amount the eligible area received for the
fiscal year preceding the year for which the determination is
being made.
``(B) Application of provision.--Subparagraph (A) shall
only apply with respect to those eligible areas receiving a
grant under paragraph (2) for fiscal year 2000 in an amount
that has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph (4) of
this subsection (as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000).''.

SEC. 108. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

Section 2604(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-14(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``for each population under this
subsection'' after ``established priorities''; and
(2) by striking ``ratio of the'' and inserting ``ratio of
each''.

Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)

SEC. 121. STATE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING IDENTIFICATION OF
NEED AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.

(a) General Use of Grants.--Section 2612 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
22) is amended--
(1) by striking ``A State'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--A State''; and
(2) in the matter following paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(2) and section 2613'';
(b) Application.--Section 2617(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b))
is amended--

[[Page S1888]]

(1) in paragraph (1)(C)--
(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) the size and demographic characteristics of the
population with HIV disease to be served, except that by not
later than October 1, 2002, the State shall take into account
the needs of individuals not in care, based on epidemiologic
measures developed by the Secretary in consultation with the
State, affected communities, experts, and other appropriate
individuals (such State shall not be required to establish
priorities for individuals not in care until such
epidemiologic measures are developed);'';
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) the availability of other governmental and non-
governmental resources;
``(vi) the capacity development needs resulting in gaps in
the provision of HIV services in historically underserved
low-income and rural low-income communities; and
``(vii) the efficiency of the administrative mechanism in
rapidly allocating funds to the areas of greatest need within
the State;''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (F);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the following:
``(C) an assurance that capacity development needs
resulting from gaps in the provision of services in
underserved low-income and rural low-income communities will
be addressed; and
``(D) with respect to fiscal year 2003 and subsequent
fiscal years, assurances that, in the planning and allocation
of resources, the State, through systems of HIV-related
health services provided under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)
of section 2612(a), will make appropriate provision for the
HIV-related health and support service needs of individuals
who have been diagnosed with HIV disease but who are not
currently receiving such services, based on the epidemiologic
measures developed under paragraph (1)(C)(i);''.

SEC. 122. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

(a) State Requirement for Quality Management.--Section
2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) the State will provide for--
``(i) the establishment of a quality management program to
assess the extent to which medical services provided to
patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent
Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV
disease and related opportunistic infections and to develop
strategies for improvements in the access to and quality of
medical services; and
``(ii) a periodic review (such as through an independent
peer review) to assess the quality and appropriateness of
HIV-related health and support services provided by entities
that receive funds from the State under this part;'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D), the following:
``(E) an assurance that the State, through systems of HIV-
related health services provided under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) of section 2612(a), has considered strategies for
working with providers to make optimal use of financial
assistance under the State medicaid plan under title XIX of
the Social Security Act, the State Children's Health
Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act, and other
Federal grantees that provide HIV-related services, to
maximize access to quality HIV-related health and support
services;
(4) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated, by striking
``and'' at the end; and
(5) in subparagraph (G), as so redesignated, by striking
the period and inserting ``; and''.
(b) Availability of Funds for Quality Management.--
(1) Availability of grant funds for planning and
evaluation.--Section 2618(c)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28(c)(3)) is
amended by inserting before the period ``, including not more
than $3,000,000 for all activities associated with its
quality management program''.
(2) Exception to combined ceiling on planning and
administration funds for states with small grants.--Paragraph
(6) of section 2618(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28(c)(6)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(6) Exception for quality management.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (5), a State whose grant under this part for a
fiscal year does not exceed $1,500,000 may use not to exceed
20 percent of the amount of the grant for the purposes
described in paragraphs (3) and (4) if--
``(A) that portion of such amount in excess of 15 percent
of the grant is used for its quality management program; and
``(B) the State submits and the Secretary approves a plan
(in such form and containing such information as the
Secretary may prescribe) for use of funds for its quality
management program.''.

SEC. 123. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE
RELATIONSHIPS.

Section 2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(4)), as amended
by section 122(a), is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(H) that funded entities maintain appropriate
relationships with entities in the area served that
constitute key points of access to the health care system for
individuals with HIV disease (including emergency rooms,
substance abuse treatment programs, detoxification centers,
adult and juvenile detention facilities, sexually transmitted
disease clinics, HIV counseling and testing sites, and
homeless shelters), and other entities under section 2652(a),
for the purpose of facilitating early intervention for
individuals newly diagnosed with HIV disease and individuals
knowledgeable of their status but not in care.''.

SEC. 124. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
RELATED.

(a) Technical amendment.--Section 3(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 1996 (Public Law 104-146)
is amended by inserting ``before paragraph (2) as so
redesignated'' after ``inserting''.
(b) Services.--Section 2612(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
22(a)(1)), as so designated by section 121(a), is amended by
striking ``for individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting
``, subject to the conditions and limitations that apply
under such section''.
(c) Conforming Amendment to State Application
Requirement.--Section 2617(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(2)),
as amended by section 121(b), is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(F) an assurance that the State has procedures in place
to ensure that services provided with funds received under
this section meet the criteria specified in section
2604(b)(1)(B); and''.

SEC. 125. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.

Section 2612(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-22(a)), as amended by
section 121, is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Early intervention services.--The State, through
systems of HIV-related health services provided under
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 2612(a), may provide
early intervention services, as described in section
2651(b)(2), with follow-up referral, provided for the purpose
of facilitating the access of individuals receiving the
services to HIV-related health services, but only if the
entity providing such services--
``(A)(i) is receiving funds under section 2612(a)(1); or
``(ii) is an entity constituting a point of access to
services, as described in section 2617(b)(4), that maintains
a referral relationship with an entity described in clause
(i) and that is serving individuals at elevated risk of HIV
disease; and
``(B) demonstrates to the State's satisfaction that no
other Federal, State, or local funds are available for the
early intervention services the entity will provide with
funds received under this paragraph.''.

SEC. 126. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIV-RELATED
SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

Section 2625(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33(c)(2)) is amended by
striking ``fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' and inserting
``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 127. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR COMPLETED INSTITUTE OF
MEDICINE REPORT.

Section 2628 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-36) is repealed.

SEC. 128. SUPPLEMENT GRANTS FOR CERTAIN STATES.

Subpart I of part B of title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:

``SEC. 2622. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award supplemental
grants to States determined to be eligible under subsection
(b) to enable such States to provide comprehensive services
of the type described in section 2612(a) to supplement the
services otherwise provided by the State under a grant under
this subpart in areas within the State that are not eligible
to receive grants under part A.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a
supplemental grant under subsection (a) a State shall--
``(1) be eligible to receive a grant under this subpart;
and
``(2) demonstrate to the Secretary that there is severe
need (as defined for purposes of section 2603(b)(2)(A) for
supplemental financial assistance in areas in the State that
are not served through grants under part A.
``(c) Application.--A State that desires a grant under this
section shall, as part of the State application submitted
under section 2617, submit a detailed description of the
manner in which the State will use amounts received under the
grant and of the severity of need. Such description shall
include--
``(1) a report concerning the dissemination of supplemental
funds under this section and the plan for the utilization of
such funds;
``(2) a demonstration of the existing commitment of local
resources, both financial and in-kind;
``(3) a demonstration that the State will maintain HIV-
related activities at a level that is equal to not less than
the level of such activities in the State for the 1-year
period preceding the fiscal year for which the State is
applying to receive a grant under this part;
``(4) a demonstration of the ability of the State to
utilize such supplemental financial resources in a manner
that is immediately responsive and cost effective;
``(5) a demonstration that the resources will be allocated
in accordance with the local demographic incidence of AIDS
including appropriate allocations for services for

[[Page S1889]]

infants, children, women, and families with HIV disease;
``(6) a demonstration of the inclusiveness of the planning
process, with particular emphasis on affected communities and
individuals with HIV disease; and
``(7) a demonstration of the manner in which the proposed
services are consistent with local needs assessments and the
statewide coordinated statement of need.
``(d) Amount Reserved for Emerging Communities.--
``(1) In general.--For awarding grants under this section
for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve the greater
of 50 percent of the amount to be utilized under subsection
(e) for such fiscal year or $5,000,000, to be provided to
States that contain emerging communities for use in such
communities.
``(2) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the term `emerging
community' means a metropolitan area--
``(A) that is not eligible for a grant under part A; and
``(B) for which there has been reported to the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a cumulative
total of between 1000 and 1999 cases of acquired immune
deficiency syndrome for the most recent period of 5 calendar
years for which such data are available.
``(e) Appropriations.--With respect to each fiscal year
beginning with fiscal year 2001, the Secretary, to carry out
this section, shall utilize 50 percent of the amount
appropriated under section 2677 to carry out part B for such
fiscal year that is in excess of the amount appropriated to
carry out such part in fiscal year preceding the fiscal year
involved.

SEC. 129. USE OF TREATMENT FUNDS.

(a) State duties.--Section 2616(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-26(c))
is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``shall--'' and inserting ``shall use funds made available
under this section to--'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as
subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively and realigning
the margins of such subparagraphs appropriately;
(3) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by striking
``and'' at the end;
(4) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated), by striking
the period and ``; and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) encourage, support, and enhance adherence to and
compliance with treatment regimens, including related medical
monitoring.'';
(6) by striking ``In carrying'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--In carrying''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Limitations.--
``(A) In general.--No State shall use funds under paragraph
(1)(F) unless the limitations on access to HIV/AIDS
therapeutic regimens as defined in subsection (e)(2) are
eliminated.
``(B) Amount of funding.--No State shall use in excess of
10 percent of the amount set-aside for use under this section
in any fiscal year to carry out activities under paragraph
(1)(F) unless the State demonstrates to the Secretary that
such additional services are essential and in no way diminish
access to therapeutics.''.
(b) Supplement Grants.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
26(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Supplemental Grants for the Provision of
Treatments.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts made available under
paragraph (5), the Secretary shall award supplemental grants
to States determined to be eligible under paragraph (2) to
enable such States to provide access to therapeutics to treat
HIV disease as provided by the State under subsection
(c)(1)(B) for individuals at or below 200 percent of the
Federal poverty line.
``(2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall develop criteria for
the awarding of grants under paragraph (1) to States that
demonstrate a severe need. In determining the criteria for
demonstrating State severity of need (as defined for purposes
of section 2603(b)(2)(A)), the Secretary shall consider
whether limitation to access exist such that--
``(A) the State programs under this section are unable to
provide HIV/AIDS therapeutic regimens to all eligible
individuals living at or below 200 percent of the Federal
poverty line; and
``(B) the State programs under this section are unable to
provide to all eligible individuals appropriate HIV/AIDS
therapeutic regimens as recommended in the most recent
Federal treatment guidelines.
``(3) State requirement.--The Secretary may not make a
grant to a State under this subsection unless the State
agrees that--
``(A) the State will make available (directly or through
donations from public or private entities) non-Federal
contributions toward the activities to be carried out under
the grant in an amount equal to $1 for each $4 of Federal
funds provided in the grant; and
``(B) the State will not impose eligibility requirements
for services or scope of benefits limitations under
subsection (a) that are more restrictive than such
requirements in effect as of January 1, 2000.
``(4) Use and coordination.--Amounts made available under a
grant under this subsection shall only be used by the State
to provide AIDS/HIV-related medications. The State shall
coordinate the use of such amounts with the amounts otherwise
provided under this section in order to maximize drug
coverage.
``(5) Funding.--
``(A) Reservation of amount.--The Secretary may reserve not
to exceed 4 percent, but not less than 2 percent, of any
amount referred to in section 2618(b)(2)(H) that is
appropriated for a fiscal year, to carry out this subsection.
``(B) Minimum amount.--In providing grants under this
subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount of a
grant to a State under this part is not less than the amount
the State received under this part in the previous fiscal
year, as a result of grants provided under this
subsection.''.
(c) Supplement and not Supplant.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C.
300ff-26(c)), as amended by subsection (b), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Supplement not supplant.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts made available under this section
shall be used to supplement and not supplant other funding
available to provide treatments of the type that may be
provided under this section.''.

SEC. 130. INCREASE IN MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 2618(b)(1)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
28(b)(1)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``$100,000'' and
inserting ``$200,000''; and
(2) in subclause (II), by striking ``$250,000'' and
inserting ``$500,000''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 2618(b)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-28(b)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``and the Republic
of the Marshall Islands'' and inserting ``, the Republic of
the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and
the Republic of Palau''.

SEC. 131. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

Section 2611(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-21(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``for each population under this
subsection'' after ``State shall use''; and
(2) by striking ``ratio of the'' and inserting ``ratio of
each''.

Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)

SEC. 141. AMENDMENT OF HEADING; REPEAL OF FORMULA GRANT
PROGRAM.

(a) Amendment of Heading.--The heading of part C of title
XXVI is amended to read as follows:

``Part C--Early Intervention and Primary Care Services''.

(b) Repeal.--Part C of title XXVI (42 U.S.C. 300ff-41 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) by repealing subpart I; and
(2) by redesignating subparts II and III as subparts I and
II.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Information regarding receipt of services.--Section
2661(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-61(a)) is amended by striking
``unless--'' and all that follows through ``(2) in the case
of'' and inserting ``unless, in the case of''.
(2) Additional agreements.--Section 2664 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
64) is amended--
(A) in subsection (e)(5), by striking ``2642(b) or'';
(B) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``2642(b) or''; and
(C) by striking subsection (h).

SEC. 142. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

(a) Allowing Planning and Development Grant to Expand
Ability to Provide Primary Care Services.--Section 2654(c)
(42 U.S.C. 300ff-54(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide planning and
development grants to public and nonprofit private entities
for the purpose of--
``(A) enabling such entities to provide HIV early
intervention services; or
``(B) assisting such entities to expand the capacity,
preparedness, and expertise to deliver primary care services
to individuals with HIV disease in underserved low-income
communities on the condition that the funds are not used to
purchase or improve land or to purchase, construct, or
permanently improve (other than minor remodeling) any
building or other facility.''; and
(2) in paragraphs (2) and (3) by striking ``paragraph (1)''
each place that such appears and inserting ``paragraph
(1)(A)''.
(b) Amount; duration.--Section 2654(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
54(c)), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Amount and duration of grants.--
``(A) Early intervention services.--A grant under paragraph
(1)(A) may be made in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
``(B) Capacity development.--
``(i) Amount.--A grant under paragraph (1)(B) may be made
in an amount not to exceed $150,000.
``(ii) Duration.--The total duration of a grant under
paragraph (1)(B), including any renewal, may not exceed 3
years.''.
(c) Increase in limitation.--Section 2654(c)(5) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-54(c)(5)), as so redesignated by subsection (b), is
amended by striking ``1 percent'' and inserting ``5
percent''.

SEC. 143. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CATEGORICAL
GRANTS.

Section 2655 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-55) is amended by striking
``1996'' and all that follows

[[Page S1890]]

through ``2000'' and inserting ``2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 144. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CEILING; QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.

Section 2664(g) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-64(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), to read as follows:
``(3) the applicant will not expend more than 10 percent of
the grant for costs of administrative activities with respect
to the grant;'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the applicant will provide for the establishment of a
quality management program to assess the extent to which
medical services funded under this title that are provided to
patients are consistent with the most recent Public Health
Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV disease and
related opportunistic infections and that improvements in the
access to and quality of medical services are addressed.''.

SEC. 145. PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

Section 2651 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-51) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(d) Preference in Awarding Grants.--Beginning in fiscal
year 2001, in awarding new grants under this section, the
Secretary shall give preference to applicants that will use
amounts received under the grant to serve areas that are
otherwise not eligible to receive assistance under part A.''.

Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)

SEC. 151. RESEARCH INVOLVING WOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND
YOUTH.

(a) Elimination of Requirement To Enroll Significant
Numbers of Women and Children.--Section 2671(b) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-71(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (C) and
(D); and
(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
(b) Information and Education.--Section 2671(d) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-71(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The applicant will provide individuals with
information and education on opportunities to participate in
HIV/AIDS-related clinical research.''.
(c) Quality Management; Administrative Expenses Ceiling.--
Section 2671(f) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking the subsection heading and designation and
inserting the following:
``(f) Administration.--
``(1) Application.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Quality management program.--A grantee under this
section shall implement a quality management program.''.
(d) Coordination.--Section 2671(g) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71(g))
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Secretary acting through the Director of NIH, shall examine
the distribution and availability of ongoing and appropriate
HIV/AIDS-related research projects to existing sites under
this section for purposes of enhancing and expanding
voluntary access to HIV-related research, especially within
communities that are not reasonably served by such
projects.''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2671(j) (42
U.S.C. 300ff-71(j)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years
1996 through 2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through
2005''.

SEC. 152. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

Section 2671 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j), as
subsections (j) and (k), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h), the following:
``(i) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--
``(1) Determination by secretary.--Not later than 12 months
after the date of enactment of the Ryan White Care Act
Amendments of 2000, the Secretary, in consultation with
grantees under this part, shall conduct a review of the
administrative, program support, and direct service-related
activities that are carried out under this part to ensure
that eligible individuals have access to quality, HIV-related
health and support services and research opportunities under
this part, and to support the provision of such services.
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
expiration of the 12-month period referred to in paragraph
(1) the Secretary, in consultation with grantees under this
part, shall determine the relationship between the costs of
the activities referred to in paragraph (1) and the access of
eligible individuals to the services and research
opportunities described in such paragraph.
``(B) Limitation.--After a final determination under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary may not make a grant under
this part unless the grantee complies with such requirements
as may be included in such determination.''.

SEC. 153. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.

Section 2674(c) (42 U.S.C. 399ff-74(c)) is amended by
striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``2001 through
2005''.

SEC. 154. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS UNDER
PARTS A AND B.

Section 2677 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-77) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 2677. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) such sums as may be necessary to carry out part A for
each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005; and
``(2) such sums as may be necessary to carry out part B for
each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.

Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)

SEC. 161. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Schools; Centers.--Section 2692(c)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
111(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1996 through
2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
(b) Dental Schools.--Section 2692(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
111(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1996 through
2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall enter into a contract with the Institute of
Medicine for the conduct of a study concerning the
appropriate epidemiological measures and their relationship
to the financing and delivery of primary care and health-
related support services for low-income, uninsured, and
under-insured individuals with HIV disease.
(b) Requirements.--
(1) Completion.--The study under subsection (a) shall be
completed not later than 21 months after the date on which
the contract referred to in such subsection is entered into.
(2) Issues to be considered.--The study conducted under
subsection (a) shall consider--
(A) the availability and utility of health outcomes
measures and data for HIV primary care and support services
and the extent to which those measures and data could be used
to measure the quality of such funded services;
(B) the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery
(including the quality of services, health outcomes, and
resource use) within the context of a changing health care
and therapeutic environment as well as the changing
epidemiology of the epidemic;
(C) existing and needed epidemiological data and other
analytic tools for resource planning and allocation
decisions, specifically for estimating severity of need of a
community and the relationship to the allocations process;
and
(D) other factors determined to be relevant to assessing an
individual's or community's ability to gain and sustain
access to quality HIV services.
(c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date on which
the study is completed under subsection (a), the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall prepare and submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report describing the
manner in which the conclusions and recommendations of the
Institute of Medicine can be addressed and implemented.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senators
Jeffords, Frist, Dodd, Hatch, Bingaman, and Wellstone in introducing
the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act. I commend Senator Jeffords for
his leadership and commitment in making this legislation a top priority
of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for enactment
this year. I commend Senator Frist for his medical knowledge and
expertise in drafting this legislation. Senator Dodd has been strongly
committed to this issue for many years and I am pleased that he
continues his commitment this year. Senator Hatch joined me more than a
decade ago when we first introduced this legislation, and he has
remained committed and involved ever since, and I commend his
leadership. Senators Bingaman and Wellstone are members of our Senate
Committee, and they have shown a great deal of interest in making sure
that these resources reach rural Americans and other emerging
populations.
Over the past twenty years, the nation has made extraordinary
progress in responding to the AIDS epidemic. Medical advances, new and
effective treatments, and the development of an HIV care infrastructure
in every state have dramatically improved the access to care for
individuals and families with HIV who would otherwise not be able to
afford such care. By providing life-sustaining health and related
support services, we have reduced the spread of AIDS.
The CARE Act has contributed to the significant drop in new AIDS
cases. AIDS-related deaths have decreased significantly, dropping 42%
from 1996 to 1997, and 20% from 1997 to 1998. Persons with HIV/AIDS are
living longer and healthier lives because of the CARE Act.
Perinatal HIV transmission from mother to child has been reduced by
75% from 1992 to 1997. We are closing the gap in health care
disparities in vulnerable populations such as communities of color,
women, and persons with HIV who are uninsured and underinsured.
Medications have made a difference too. Highly active anti-retroviral

[[Page S1891]]

therapies have given a second lease on life to many Americans with HIV/
AIDS. An estimated 80% of persons in treatment have used one or more of
these new and effective drugs.
HIV health care and supportive services have also made a difference.
An estimated 600,000 persons have received HIV services through the
Ryan White CARE Act, including primary care, substance abuse treatment,
dental care, hospice care, and other specialized HIV health care
services, and the availability of these services has enabled them to
lead productive lives.
In Massachusetts, for example, we have seen an overall 77% decline in
AIDS and HIV-related deaths since 1995. At the same time, however, like
many other states, we are concerned about the changing HIV/AIDS trends
and profiles. AIDS and HIV cases increased in women by 11% from 1997 to
1998, and 55% of persons living with AIDS in the state are persons of
color.
Clearly, we have had significant successes in fighting AIDS. We have
come a long way from the days when ideology dictated care for people
with AIDS and not sound public health policy. Fortunately, with the
leadership of Senator Hatch and Senator Jeffords and our bipartisan
coalition, we were able to enact the Ryan White CARE Act in memory of
Ryan White. He was a young man with hemophilia who contracted AIDS
through blood transfusions, and touched the world's heart through his
valiant efforts to speak out against the ignorance and discrimination
faced by many persons living with AIDS. His mother, Jeanne White
carried on her son's message after Ryan's death in 1990. She was
instrumental in the passage of the Care Act in 1990 and then again in
1996 and now in 2000.
The enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act in 1900 provided an
emergency response to the devastating effects of HIV on individuals,
families, communities, and state and local governments. The CARE Act
signaled a comprehensive approach by targeting funds to respond to the
specific needs of communities. Title I targets the hardest hit
metropolitan areas in the country. Local planning and priority setting
requirements under Title I assure that each of the Eligible
Metropolitan Areas respond to the local HIV/AIDS demographics.
Title II of the Act funds emergency relief to the states. It helps
them to develop an HIV care infrastructure and provide effective and
life-sustaining HIV/AIDS drug therapies through the AIDS Drug
Assistance Program to over 61,000 persons each month.
Title III funds community health centers and other primary health
care providers that serve communities with a significant and
disproportionate need for HIV care. Many of these community health
centers are located in the hardest hit areas, serving low income
communities.
Finally, Title IV of the CARE Act is designed to meet the specific
needs of women, children and families.
While the CARE Act has benefited large numbers of Americans in need,
a number of critical areas remain where improvements are essential if
we are to meet the growing needs in our communities. We know that of
the estimated 750,000 persons living with HIV/AIDS in the United
States, over 215,000 know their HIV status, yet are not in care. New
health care access points are needed to bring these persons into care.
At the same time, the CARE Act programs currently serving an estimated
600,000 persons annually are challenged more than ever in meeting the
growing need and demand for services. The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention estimates that the need will continue to grow since we
have an estimated 40,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS annually in the United
States.
Also, not everyone is benefiting from the advances in the development
of new and effective drug treatments. The skyrocketing costs of
expensive AIDS drugs, estimated at $15,000 annually per person, has led
26% of the CARE Act's AIDS Drug Assistance Programs to cap enrollment,
establish waiting lists, or limit eligibility. Guaranteeing that
effective drug treatments are available and affordable to all persons
with HIV/AIDS has always been a priority for the CARE Act. Reducing
barriers to access in communities of color and other vulnerable
populations is a priority for this reauthorization.

We are fortunate in Massachusetts to have a state budget that has
also been able to provide funding for primary care, prevention, and
outreach efforts, but no state by itself can provide the significant
financial resources to help persons living with HIV to obtain needed
medical and support access.
We still find serious disparities in access to HIV health care in
communities of color, women, the uninsured and underinsured. The
demographics of the epidemic have been steadily changing. The majority
of new AIDS cases reported are among racial and ethnic minority
populations and groups that traditionally have faced heavy barriers in
obtaining adequate health care services. While African Americans make
up 12% of the general population, they account for 45% of new AIDS
cases. 80% of new AIDS cases are occurring in women of color. As many
as half of all new infections are occurring in people under the age of
25, and one quarter of all new infections are occurring in persons
under the age of 22. The CARE Act must be able to adjust to meet these
changing trends in the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Geographic shifts in the
epidemic as well as the availability of new sources of financing for
HIV/AIDS care must be taken into account to assure equity in how the
federal government and states respond to the epidemic.
The CARE Act must continue to provide resources to help local
communities to plan and to set priorities for CARE dollars. We must
develop better ways to measure the severity of need and the health
disparities, and assure that these improvements are taken into account
in HIV planning, in establishing priorities, and in allocating funds.
This bill addresses these new challenges in ensuring access to HIV
drug treatments for all, reducing health disparities in vulnerable
communities, and improving the distribution and quality of services
under the CARE Act. Proposed changes will ensure greater access to care
in low income, historically underserved urban and rural communities, by
increasing targeted funding to areas where the HIV care infrastructure
may not exist. This bill also focuses on quality and accountability of
HIV service delivery by requiring effective quality management
activities that ensure their consistency with Public Health Service
guidelines, and by making changes to ensure that CARE Act dollars are
used for their intended purposes.
These improvements are intended to close the gap in health care
disparities and improve inequities in services and funding among
states. They will build capacity in underserved rural and urban areas,
and focus state and local program priorities on underserved populations
and persons not in care. They will develop new points of entry
relationships to improve coordination of care. They will increase early
access to care, in order to begin HIV treatment earlier and improve the
quality of care that patients receive.
We know that the CARE Act has made a difference not only in the lives
of persons with HIV/AIDS, but also in the lives of countless loved ones
who have seen despair turned to hope through support of CARE Act
services. The story of Lory in Massachusetts is a compelling example of
young woman living with HIV, unable to work full-time, and unable to
afford anti-retroviral medications without Ryan White CARE Act
assistance. The support she has received from the caring staff at
Fenway Clinic in Boston is impressive. As Lory told us at our committee
hearing on March 2nd on the reauthorization of the Act ``It is not an
exaggeration when I tell you that without Fenway I would be dead. They
have saved my life.''
I'm sure that Lory's eloquent testimony is true of countless others
across the country who are living with this tragic disease. The Ryan
White CARE Act has made an enormous difference in their lives. I look
forward to early action by Congress on this important legislation, so
that we can continue to help as many people as possible.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention estimate that between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans are
currently living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), of whom
280,000 have acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). As of June
1999, there were 8,814 people in my home state of Tennessee living with
HIV/AIDS. As a physician, I have seen first hand the deadly impact of

[[Page S1892]]

this disease on patients, and have also seen first hand what can happen
if the prevalence of AIDS goes unchecked. On February 24, 2000, as
chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa, I held a
hearing on the AIDS crisis in Africa. In Africa, this disease has
reached truly pandemic proportions, causing cultural and economic
devastation. Every day, there are 16,000 new infections globally,
despite the great strides we have made in the treatment and prevention
of this condition.
Ironically and unfortunately, the new advancements in treatment may
have caused many to become complacent. A survey co-authored by Yale
revealed that more than 80% of our youth do not believe they are at
risk for HIV infections. However, the fact is that the number of new
infections among adolescents continues to rise and it is rising
disproportionally among minorities. AIDS remains the leading cause of
death among African-Americans 25-44 years of age and the second leading
cause of death among Latinos in the same age range. Furthermore, in
1998, African-American and Hispanic women accounted for 80% of the
total AIDS cases reported for women nationwide. In my own state of
Tennessee, 59% of the new AIDS cases were among African-Americans, who
make up 45% of the total AIDS cases in the state. Since its original
discovery, it is estimated that over 13.9 million have died worldwide
and over 400,000 have died in the United States as a result of HIV/
AIDS. Fortunately, over the last 15 years, we have doubled the life
expectancy of people with AIDS, developed new and powerful drugs for
the treatment of HIV infection, and made advances in the treatment and
prevention of AIDS-related opportunistic infections.
Another important component in the struggle against HIV/AIDS has been
the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, which
I am pleased to join with Senator Jeffords in supporting today. The
Ryan White CARE Act, a unique partnership between federal, local, and
state governments; non-profit community organizations, health care and
supportive service providers. For the last decade, this Act has
successfully provided much needed assistance in health care costs and
support services for low-income, uninsured and underinsured individuals
with HIV/AIDS.
Through programs such as AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), which
provides access to pharmaceuticals, the CARE Act has helped extend and
even save lives. Last year alone, nearly 100,000 people living with HIV
and AIDS received access to drug therapy because of the CARE Act. Half
the people served by the CARE Act have family incomes of less than
$10,000 annually, which is lower than the $12,000 annual average cost
of new drug ``cocktails'' for treatment. The CARE Act is critical in
ensuring that the number of people living with AIDS continues to
increase, as effective new drug therapies are keeping HIV-infected
persons healthy longer and dramatically reducing the death rate.
Investments in enabling patients with HIV to live healthier and more
productive lives have helped to reduce overall health costs. For
example, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the
nation has seen a 30% decline in HIV related hospitalizations, which
results in nearly one million fewer HIV related hospital days and a
savings of more than $1 billion.
During the 104th Congress, I had the pleasure of working with Senator
Kassebaum on the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 1996 to ensure this
needed law was extended. Today I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords as
an original cosponsor to the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000,
which will further improve and extend this law. Senator Jeffords, who
has done a terrific job in crafting this bill, has already outlined
some specifics of this legislation, however, I would like to conclude
by discussing a specific provision which I am grateful Senator Jeffords
included in this reauthorization.
This bill contains a provision, under Title II of this Act, to
address the fact that the face of this disease is changing and is
moving into and affecting more rural communities. A recent GAO audit
found that rural areas may offer more limited medical and social
services than cities because urban areas generally receive more money
per AIDS case. To help address this concern, this new provision will
provide supplemental grants to States for additional HIV/AIDS services
in underserved areas. One important aspect of this provision is the
creation of supplemental grants for emerging metropolitan communities,
which do not qualify for Title I funding but have reported between
1,000 and 2,000 AIDS cases in the last five years. Currently, this
provision would provide 7 cities, including Memphis and Nashville, a
general pot of money to divide of at least $5 million in new funding
each year, or 25% of new monies under Title II, whichever is greater.
Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Jeffords for his
leadership on this issue, and Sean Donohue and William Fleming of his
staff for all their expertise in drafting this bill. I would also like
to thank Senator Kennedy and Stephanie Robinson of his staff for their
work and dedication to this issue. I would also like to thank Dr. Bill
Moore of the Tennessee Department of Health and Mr. Joe Interrante of
Nashville CARES for their counsel and assistance on this legislation
and for their efforts in helping Tennesseans with HIV/AIDS.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kennedy,
Jeffords, Frist, Hatch, Bingaman, Harkin, Wellstone, Reed, Enzi, and
Mikulski in sponsoring the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act,
legislation which will provide for the continuation of critical support
services for those living with HIV and AIDS. I thank Senators Jeffords
and Kennedy for their leadership and commitment to this important bill,
and commend their efforts to ensure that the reauthorization
legislation addresses the new challenges of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Over the last two decades, our Nation has made tremendous advances in
responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. We've all been encouraged by the
recent reports that the number of AIDS cases dropped last year for the
first time in the 16 year history of the epidemic. The new combination
therapies largely responsible for this change in course have brought
new hope to families devastated by this disease. Although it was
unimaginable just a few years ago, it now appears possible that we may
soon view AIDS, if not as curable, than at least as a manageable,
chronic illness.
But, despite these advances in treatment options, the HIV/AIDS
epidemic remains an enormous health emergency in the United States,
with the number of AIDS cases in the U.S. nearly doubling during the
last five years. According to a study sponsored by the U.S. Public
Health Service, approximately 250,000 to 300,000 people living with HIV
or AIDS currently receive no medical treatment. Therefore, while we
must sustain our efforts in the areas of research and education, it is
also critical that we continue to provide resources to help states and
disproportionately affected communities develop the necessary
infrastructure to provide HIV/AIDS care. One of the most important
changes made to the Ryan White programs by this Reauthorization Act is
the emphasis on the need for early diagnosis of the disease. This new
emphasis is reflected in the bill's provisions relating to early
intervention activities, which will support early diagnosis and
encourage linkages into care for populations at high risk for HIV.
In the decade since the enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act we've
seen a transformation in the face of AIDS. Since women and children are
disproportionately represented among the newly infected, I am
especially pleased that this bill provides for the coordination of Ryan
White and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funds, and
includes a set-aside for infants, children, and women proportionate to
the percentage each group represents in the eligible funding area's
AIDS affected population.
During the decade of the Ryan White CARE Act, we've also seen a shift
in the challenges facing providers. Ten years ago, Ryan White providers
focused primarily on helping people while they died. Now, more and
more, providers are moving into the business of helping individuals
infected with HIV live long and full lives. But, while the discovery of
powerful drug therapies has improved the quality and length of life for
many who are HIV positive, access to these drugs and to

[[Page S1893]]

other critical health services is still difficult for many, since AIDS
is fast becoming a disease of poverty. The CARE Act's AIDS Drug
Assistance Programs remain a lifeline for low-income individuals who
cannot afford the costs of regular care and expensive AIDS drug
regimens (now estimated at $15,000 annually per person).
The CARE Act has made a difference to the lives of countless
individuals and families affected by a devastating disease. While there
is hope for the future, the changing demographics of the disease
present new challenges. The Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000
address these challenges while maintaining those aspects of the Act
that demonstrate proven results. I look forward to working with
Congress as we move forward with the reauthorization, so that the
thousands of people who rely on the services of Ryan White programs can
continue to maintain their dignity and quality of life.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues on the HELP
committee to cosponsor the Ryan White Care Act Amendments of 2000. I do
this with pride in what has been accomplished since I last cosponsored
the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act in 1996. This
legislation since 1991 has enabled the development of community driven
systems of care for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals
and families affected by HIV disease.
Last year alone, the Ryan White CARE Act served an estimated half
million people living with HIV and AIDS and affected the lives of
millions more. Nearly 6 in 10 of these people were poor. Last year,
this legislation enabled approximately 100,000 people living with HIV
and AIDS to receive drug therapy. This is particularly important
because half of the people served by the Act have incomes less than
$10,000 a year--and the new drug treatments cost more than $12,000
annually.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, between 1995
and 1997, there has been a 30 percent decline in HIV related
hospitalizations, representing a savings of more than $1 billion. Since
1991, according to Sandra Thurman, Director of the Office of National
AIDS Policy, the CARE Act has helped to reduce AIDS mortality by 70
percent; to reduce mother-child transmission of HIV by 75 percent; and
to enhance both the length and quality of life for people living with
HIV/AIDS.
The epidemic is far from over. Each year there are 40,000 new HIV
infections in the U.S., and the death rate is no longer dropping so
quickly. Although people with HIV disease are living much longer, the
highly touted multi-drug therapies are beginning to fall short of their
prayed for effectiveness, and they do not work for everyone.
In addition, the nature of the epidemic is changing. HIV/AIDS is
devastating communities of color. AIDS is the leading cause of death
for African-Americans aged 25 to 44, and the second leading cause of
death among Latino Americans of the same age group. HIV/AIDS also
disproportionately affects younger Americans. Half of the 40,000 new
infections each year occur in individuals under age 25. AIDS is killing
the youngest, potentially most productive members of our society.
Without a renewed commitment to research, prevention, and culturally
sensitive treatment, the rates of infection and death will continue to
ravage communities of color.
It is a testament to the success of this legislation that there is
such unanimity among the committee members and all of the diverse group
of stakeholders that the Ryan White Care Act needs to be reauthorized.
The amendments included in this legislation are designed to increase
the accountability of the overall program; to meet the challenges of
the changing nature of the epidemic; to improve the quality of care;
and to reach those affected by this plague who have not been reached
before. We often say ``Leave no child behind'' and everyone agrees. We
must also say, ``let's leave no one afflicted by this dread disease
untreated''.
Provisions for quality management around clinical practice will bring
best practices to patients. Holding grantees accountable for quality
management and relevance of programs means the money appropriated will
be well spent. This is good medicine and responsible lawmaking.
Allowing for flexibility in how the AIDS Drug Assistance Program
(ADAP) funds are spent will provide more low-income individuals with
life-prolonging medications. Focusing on early intervention services to
support early diagnosis will get patients into treatment faster and
hopefully also slow the spread of the disease. Requiring grantees to
develop and maintain linkages with key points of entry to the medical
system, such as mental health and substance abuse treatment centers,
will dramatically improve treatment, slow the spread of the disease,
and reach previously unserved people. This is good prevention.
In 1990, the HIV/AIDS epidemic was primarily limited to large cities;
hence the majority of funds were granted to cities. Over the last
decade, unfortunately, the epidemic has spread to more rural areas and
to different populations. This bill requires that funds be spent in
accordance with local demographics. Several provisions in this bill
will allow more funds to go to less populated areas and to provide
special grants for infants, youth and women. This is good allocation of
resources based on needs.
This bill also contains fiscally responsible caps on administrative
costs, and requires all grantees to coordinate with Medicaid and the
State Children's Health Insurance Program. This makes good fiscal
sense.
Mr. President, the Ryan White CARE Act has saved lives and serves
hundreds of thousands of needy people yearly. The Ryan White CARE Act
has a proven record of success; let's build on that success. This
federal legislation needs to be reauthorized now, as proposed, to meet
the continuing needs and new challenges presented by the changing
nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
That is why I urge all Senators to join in cosponsoring and passing
the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000, and I urge the members of
the Appropriations Committee to provide the funds to fully implement
it.
______

By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 2312. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for a moratorium on the mandatory delay of payment of claims
submitted under part B of the Medicare Program and to establish an
advanced informational infrastructure for the administration of Federal
health benefits programs; to the Committee on Finance.

HEALTH CARE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT ACT OF 2000

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Health Care
Infrastructure Investment Act.
Formerly arcane statistics of interest only to economists,
productivity and innovation are now veritable buzz-words in today's
much-heralded new economy. Recently released productivity figures drew
front page coverage from both the Washington Post and New York Times.
Most economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan,
attribute the surge in productivity to technological improvements. A
host of new and improved technologies, including faster computers and
rapid expansion of the Internet, have led to improved efficiencies. The
result: workers are more productive, companies continue to grow and
wealth is created.
Today nearly every industrial sector is involved in a race to apply
new technology and management techniques to gain greater efficiencies.
Yet one sector that accounts for 13 percent of America's gross domestic
product--health care--still uses a patchwork-quilt of outdated
technology for the most basic of its transactions.
While individual components within the health industry are adopting
advanced communication, manufacturing and other technologies but the
inner core of health care--a series of transactions between doctor,
patient and insurance provider--remains largely untouched by
technological advances that would decrease the administrative load
accompanying every transaction.
At a time when America's growing population is seeking a higher
quality of care; when the greying of America means that Medicare
enrollment will double by 2040; when new medical procedures are being
developed that hold great promise for the treatment and cure of
diseases like cancer and AIDS; when prescription drugs are becoming
available that extend and improve the quality of life--we have every
motivation for adopting into health care some

[[Page S1894]]

of the same technologies and ideas responsible for transforming other
sectors of the American economy.
A robust and modern infrastructure for American health care will
enable resources to be shifted to where they are most needed and allow
for the dramatic increases in productivity necessary to treat
increasing numbers of people at a higher level of care. In this sense,
efficiency is not double-speak for additional restrictions placed on
the doctor-patient relationship or further regulations on insurance
coverage. Instead, greater efficiency means that doctors are free to
spend more time treating patients, insurance companies reduce the cost
of claims processing and consumers are empowered with a better
understanding of treatment and costs.
America's interstate highway system is a prime example of a wise
infrastructure investment. As a result of a sustained Federal
commitment, Americans enjoy an unprecedented degree of mobility while
the economy benefits from the low cost and ease of transportation. A
similar approach should be applied to health care whose roads for
processing information resemble the rutted cobblestone paths of
medieval times.
The Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act is designed to spur
Federal and private sector investment so that a nationwide network of
systems is built for health care. A network of systems is a descriptive
term that refers to the conglomeration of hardware, software and secure
information networks designed to speed the flow of information and
capital between doctors, patients and insurance providers.
The primary goal of the Health Care Infrastructure Investment Act is
to build an advanced infrastructure to efficiently process and handle
the vast number of straightforward transactions that now clog the
pipeline and drain scarce health care resources. Among the targeted
transactions are immediate, point-of-service verification of insurance
coverage, point-of-service checking for incomplete or erroneous claim
submission and point-of-service resolution of clean claims for doctor
office visits including the delivery of an explanation of benefits and
payment.
When designing a complex system, a first step is to define
performance standards that the system must meet. As configured, the
legislation mandates broadly defined performance standards for the
federally administered Medicare program that will be phased-in over a
ten year period. To ensure that improvements in the infrastructure
supporting federally-financed health care are matched in the managed
care sector, insurers participating in the Federal Employees Health
Benefits program will also be required to meet these same performance
standards.

Also critical will be harnessing the expertise of selection of the
Federal agency responsible for the design and implementation of an
advanced health care infrastructure. Some of my colleagues have
suggested that the Department of Defense or even NASA, two agencies
with decades of experience with complex, distributed networks, be
assigned a leadership role. Accordingly, the legislation forms a Health
Care Infrastructure Commission, chaired by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, and composed of senior officials from NASA, the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Science Foundation, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Officials named to the Health Care Infrastructure Commission
are required to be expert in advanced information technology.
The legislation also strives to create a strong partnership with the
private sector, as many of the advances in communication technology are
driven by companies, both large and small.
Many pieces of a truly advanced health care infrastructure already
exist. But like a modern-day Tower of Babel, communication is hindered
by differences in language and function. Sorely needed is a combination
of vision and commitment: vision to design a system that is secure,
efficient and flexible and the commitment to dedicate necessary
intellectual and financial resources for its design and implementation.
America has put a man on the moon, designed advanced stealth fighters
and is now enjoying a sustained period of economic expansion stimulated
by electronic devices, telephone and Internet. We must now develop and
build a health care infrastructure that checks insurance status with
the swipe of a card, provides speedy payment to doctors for their
expertise in healing and allows a patient to leave the doctor's office
with a single statement of treatment and cost. I am confident that we
will succeed.
I urge my colleagues to support the Health Care Infrastructure
Investment Act.
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Reid, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2315. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
with respect to the safety of genetically engineered foods, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD SAFETY ACT

<bullet> Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am joined with Senator
Reid and Senator Boxer to introduce the Genetically Engineered Food
Safety Act (S. 2315), a bill to require food safety testing for
genetically engineered foods.
The ability to alter an organism by specifically transferring genetic
codes between plants and animals is a new realm of science that we have
only begun investigating. This technology has the promise to deliver
real public goods: increased crop yields and products which combat
disease and improve nutrition. But the technology also has the
potential to pose a number of threats to the nation's public health,
environment, and economy, and U.S. consumers are understandably
concerned.
The Federal Government has a duty to ensure that genetically
engineered foods (GEFs) are safe to eat. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) currently requires rigorous pre-market review for
pharmaceutical drugs, biological products, and medical devices
introduced in the U.S. market. For GEFs, however, FDA only asks the
industry to submit safety data voluntarily. Even if industry fully
complies, our concern is that a conflict of interest exists when an
industry determines its own level of safety review for products it
wants to promote.
S. 2315 would simply give FDA discretion to conduct its own safety
testing of new GEFs and requires that certain factors are examined.
GEFs on the market today will remain on the market as long as FDA also
reviews these products for health safety. Much like the current
practice, funding for these tests will come primarily from industry. A
fee system will be developed that is modeled after FDA's current
program for reviewing pharmaceuticals and supplemented by Federal
funding.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2315

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 ``Genetically Engineered Food
Safety Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Genetic engineering is an artificial gene transfer
process different from traditional breeding.
(2) Genetic engineering can be used to produce new versions
of virtually all plant and animal foods. Thus, within a short
time, the food supply could consist almost entirely of
genetically engineered products.
(3) This conversion from a food supply based on
traditionally bred organisms to one based on organisms
produced through genetic engineering could be one of the most
important changes in the food supply in this century.
(4) Genetically engineered foods present new issues of
safety that have not been adequately studied.
(5) United States consumers are increasing concerned that
food safety issues regarding genetically engineered foods are
not being adequately addressed.
(6) Congress has previously required that food additives be
analyzed for their safety prior to their placement on the
market.
(7) Adding new genes, and the substances that the genes
code for, into a food should be considered adding a food
additive, thus requiring an analysis of safety factors.
(8) The food additive process gives the Food and Drug
Administration discretion in

[[Page S1895]]

applying the safety factors that are generally recognized as
appropriate to evaluate the safety of food and food
ingredients.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF SAFETY OF GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED FOOD; REGULATION AS FOOD ADDITIVE.

(a) Inclusion in Definition of Food Additive.--Section 201
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (s), by adding after subparagraph (6) the
following:
``Such term includes the different genetic constructs,
proteins of or other substances produced by such constructs,
vectors, promoters, marker systems, and other appropriate
terms that are used or created as a result of the creation of
a genetically engineered food, other than a genetic
construct, protein or other substance, vector, promoter,
marker system, or other appropriate term for which an
application has been filed under section 505 or 512.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(kk)(1) The term `genetically engineered food' means food
that contains or was produced with a genetically engineered
material.
``(2) The term `genetically engineered material' means
material derived from any part of a genetically engineered
organism.
``(3) The term `genetically engineered organism' means--
``(A) an organism that has been altered at the molecular or
cellular level by means that are not possible under natural
conditions or processes (including recombinant DNA and RNA
techniques, cell fusion, microencapsulation,
macroencapsulation, gene deletion and doubling, introduction
of a foreign gene, and a process that changes the positions
of genes), other than a means consisting exclusively of
breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro
fertilization, or tissue culture; and
``(B) an organism made through sexual or asexual
reproduction (or both) involving an organism described in
clause (A), if possessing any of the altered molecular or
cellular characteristics of the organism so described.
``(4) The term `genetic food additive' means a genetic
construct, protein or other substance, vector, promoter,
marker system, or other appropriate term that is a food
additive.''.
(b) Petition to Establish Safety.--
(1) Data in petition.--Section 409(b)(2) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(2)) is
amended--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) in the case of a genetic food additive, all data that
was collected or developed pursuant to the investigations,
including data that does not support the claim of safety for
use.''.
(2) Notices; public availability of information.--Section
409(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 348(b)(5)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(5)'' and inserting ``(5)(A)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following subparagraphs:
``(B) In the case of a genetic food additive, the
Secretary, promptly after providing the notice under
subparagraph (A), shall make available to the public all
reports and data described in subparagraphs (E) and (F) of
paragraph (2) that are contained in the petition involved,
and all other information in the petition to the extent that
the information is relevant to a determination of safety for
use of the additive. Such notice shall state whether any
information in the petition is not being made available to
the public because the Secretary has made a determination
that the information does not relate to safety for use of the
additive. Any person may petition the Secretary for a
reconsideration of such a determination, and if the Secretary
finds in favor of such person, the information shall be made
available to the public and the period for public comment
described in subsection (c)(2)(B) shall be extended until the
end of the 30th day after the information is made available.
``(C) In the case of a genetic food additive, the following
rules shall apply:
``(i) The Secretary shall maintain and make available to
the public through electronic and non-electronic means a list
of petitions that are pending under this subsection and a
list of petitions for which regulations have been established
under subsection (c)(1)(A). Such list shall include
information on the additives involved, including the source
of the additives, and including any information received by
the Secretary pursuant to clause (ii).
``(ii) If a regulation is in effect under subsection
(c)(1)(A) for a genetic food additive, any person who
manufactures such additive for commercial use shall submit to
the Secretary a notification of any knowledge of data that
relate to the adverse health effects of the additive, in a
case in which the knowledge is acquired by the person after
the date on which the regulation took effect. If the
manufacturer is in possession of the data, the notification
shall include the data. The Secretary shall by regulation
establish the scope of the responsibilities of manufacturers
under this clause, including such limits on the
responsibilities as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.''.
(3) Effective date of regulation regarding safe use;
opportunity for public comment.--Section 409(c)(2) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(2)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(2)(A)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following subparagraph:
``(B) In the case of a genetic food additive, an order may
not be issued under paragraph (1)(A) before the expiration of
the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the
Secretary has made information available to the public under
subsection (b)(5)(B) regarding the petition involved. During
such period (or such longer period as the Secretary may
designate), the Secretary shall provide interested persons an
opportunity to submit to the Secretary comments on the
petition. In publishing a notice for the additive under
subsection (b)(5), the Secretary shall inform the public of
such opportunity.''.
(4) Consideration of certain factors.--Section 409(c) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348(c))
is amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(6) In the case of a genetic food additive, the factors
considered by the Secretary regarding safety for use shall
include the following:
``(A) Allergenicity effects resulting from added proteins,
including proteins not found in the food supply.
``(B) Appropriate types of toxicity of proteins or other
substances added to genetically engineered foods.
``(C) Pleiotropic effects. The Secretary shall require
tests to determine the potential for such effects, including
increased levels of toxins, or changes in the levels of
nutrients.
``(D) Changes in the functional characteristics of food.''.
(5) Certain tests.--Section 409(c) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by paragraph (4), is
further amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(7) In the case of a genetic food additive, the following
rules shall apply:
``(A) If a genetic food additive is a protein from a
commonly or severely allergenic food, the Secretary may not
establish a regulation under paragraph (1)(A) for the
additive if the petition filed under subsection (b)(1) for
the additive fails to include full reports of investigations
that used serum or skin tests (or other advanced techniques)
on a sensitive population to determine whether such additive
is commonly or severely allergenic.
``(B)(i) If a genetic food additive is a protein that has
not undergone the investigations described in subparagraph
(A), the Secretary may not establish a regulation under
paragraph (1)(A) for the additive if the petition filed under
subsection (b)(1) fails to include full reports of
investigations that used the best available biochemical and
physiological protocols to evaluate whether it is likely that
the protein involved is an allergen.
``(ii)(I) For purposes of clause (i), the Secretary shall
by regulation determine the best available biochemical and
physiological protocols.
``(II) In carrying out rulemaking under subclause (I), the
Secretary shall consult with the Director of the National
Institutes of Health.''.
(6) Prohibited additives.--Section 409(c) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by paragraph (5), is
further amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(8)(A) In the case of a genetic food additive, the
Secretary may only establish a regulation under paragraph
(1)(A) for the additive if the regulation requires that a
food containing the additive meet the requirements of
subparagraph (C), in a case in which--
``(i) the additive is a protein and a report of an
investigation described in subsection (b)(2)(E) finds that
the additive is likely to be commonly or severely allergenic;
or
``(ii) the additive is a protein and such a report of an
investigation that uses a protocol described in paragraph
(7)(B) fails to find with reasonable certainty that the
additive is unlikely to be an allergen.
``(B) Effective June 1, 2004, in the case of a genetic food
additive, the Secretary may not establish a regulation under
paragraph (1)(A), and shall repeal any regulation in effect
under that paragraph, for the additive if a selective marker
is used with respect to the additive, the selective marker
will remain in the food involved when the food is marketed,
and the selective marker inhibits the function of 1 or more
antimicrobial drugs.
``(C) In a case described in clause (i) or (ii) of
subparagraph (A), in order to meet the requirements of this
subparagraph, a food that contains a genetic food additive
shall--
``(i) bear a label or labeling that clearly and
conspicuously states the name of the allergen involved; or
``(ii) be offered for sale under a name that includes the
name of the allergen.''.
(7) Additional provisions.--Section 409(c) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by paragraph (6), is
further amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(9)(A) In determining the safety for use of a genetic
food additive under this subsection, the Secretary may
(directly or through contract) conduct an investigation of
such additive for purposes of supplementing the information
provided to the Secretary pursuant to a petition filed under
subsection (b)(1).
``(B) To provide Congress with a periodic independent,
external review of the Secretary's formulation of the
approval process

[[Page S1896]]

carried out under paragraph (1)(A) that relates to genetic
food additives, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement
with the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
Sciences. Such agreement shall provide that, if the Institute
of Medicine has any concerns regarding the approval process,
the Institute of Medicine will submit to Congress a report
describing such concerns.
``(C) In the case of genetic food additives, petitions
filed under subsection (b)(1) may not be categorically
excluded from the application of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).''.
(c) Regulation Issued on Secretary's Initiative.--Section
409(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
348(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(d) The Secretary'' and inserting
``(d)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(2) The provisions of subsections (b) and (c) that
expressly refer to genetic food additives apply with respect
to a regulation proposed by the Secretary under paragraph (1)
to the same extent and in the same manner as such provisions
apply with respect to a regulation issued under subsection
(c) in response to a petition filed under subsection (b)(1).
For purposes of this subsection, references in such
provisions to information contained in such a petition shall
be considered to be references to similar information in the
possession of the Secretary.''.
(d) Civil Penalties.--Section 303 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333) is amended by adding
at the end the following subsection:
``(h)(1) With respect to a violation of section 301(a),
301(b), or 301(c) involving the adulteration of food by
reason of failure to comply with the provisions of section
409 that relate to genetic food additives, any person
engaging in such a violation shall be liable to the United
States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed
$100,000 for each such violation.
``(2) Paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection (g) apply
with respect to a civil penalty under paragraph (1) of this
subsection to the same extent and in the same manner as such
paragraphs (3) through (5) apply with respect to a civil
penalty under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g).''.
(e) Rule of Construction.--With respect to section 409 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, compliance with the
provisions of such section 409 that relate to genetic food
additives does not constitute an affirmative defense in any
cause of action under Federal or State law for personal
injury resulting in whole or in part from a genetic food
additive.

SEC. 4. USER FEES REGARDING DETERMINATION OF SAFETY OF
GENETIC FOOD ADDITIVES.

Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 341 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 409
the following section:

``SEC. 409A. USER FEES REGARDING SAFETY OF GENETIC FOOD
ADDITIVES.

``(a) In General.--In the case of genetic food additives,
the Secretary shall, in accordance with this section, assess
and collect a fee on each petition that is filed under
section 409(b)(1). The fee shall be collected from the person
who submits the petition, shall be due upon submission of the
petition, and shall be assessed in an amount determined under
subsection (c). This section applies as of the first fiscal
year that begins after the date of promulgation of the final
regulation required in section 5 of the Genetically
Engineered Food Safety Act (referred to in this section as
the `first applicable fiscal year').
``(b) Purpose of Fees.--
``(1) In general.--The purposes of fees required under
subsection (a) are as follows:
``(A) To defray increases in the costs of the resources
allocated for carrying out section 409 for the first
applicable fiscal year over the costs of carrying out such
section for the preceding fiscal year, other than increases
that are not attributable to the responsibilities of the
Secretary with respect to genetic food additives.
``(B) To provide for a program of basic and applied
research on the safety of genetic food additives (to be
carried out by the Commissioner). The program shall address
fundamental questions and problems that arise repeatedly
during the process of reviewing petitions under section
409(b)(1) with respect to genetic food additives, and shall
not directly support the development of new genetically
engineered foods.
``(2) Allocations by secretary.--Of the total fee revenues
collected under subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reserve and expend--
``(A) 95 percent for the purpose described in paragraph
(1)(A); and
``(B) 5 percent for the purpose described in paragraph
(1)(B).
``(3) Certain provisions regarding increased administrative
costs.--With respect to fees required under subsection (a)--
``(A) increases referred to in paragraph (1)(A) include the
costs of the Secretary in providing for investigations under
section 409(c)(9)(A); and
``(B) increases referred to in paragraph (1)(A) include
increases in costs for an additional number of full-time
equivalent positions in the Department of Health and Human
Services to be engaged in carrying out section 409 with
respect to genetic food additives.
``(c) Total Fee Revenues; Individual Fee Amounts.--The
total fee revenues collected under subsection (a) for a
fiscal year shall be the amounts appropriated under
subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (f)(2) for such fiscal
year. Individual fees shall be assessed by the Secretary on
the basis of an estimate by the Secretary of the amount
necessary to ensure that the sum of the fees collected for
such fiscal year equals the amount so appropriated.
``(d) Fee Waiver or Reduction.--The Secretary shall grant a
waiver from or a reduction of a fee assessed under subsection
(a) if the Secretary finds that--
``(1) the fee to be paid will exceed the anticipated
present and future costs incurred by the Secretary in
carrying out the purposes described in subsection (b) (which
finding may be made by the Secretary using standard costs);
or
``(2) collection of the fee would result in substantial
hardship for the person assessed for the fee.
``(e) Assessment of Fees.--
``(1) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--Fees may not be assessed under
subsection (a) for a fiscal year beginning after the first
applicable fiscal year unless the amount appropriated for
salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration for
such fiscal year is equal to or greater than the amount
appropriated for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug
Administration for the first applicable fiscal year
multiplied by the adjustment factor applicable to the later
fiscal year.
``(B) Determinations.--In making determinations under this
paragraph for the fiscal years involved, the Secretary shall
exclude--
``(i) the amounts appropriated under subsection (f)(2) for
the fiscal years involved; and
``(ii) the amounts appropriated under section 736(g) for
such fiscal years.
``(2) Authority.--If under paragraph (1) the Secretary does
not have authority to assess fees under subsection (a) during
a portion of a fiscal year, but does at a later date in such
fiscal year have such authority, the Secretary,
notwithstanding the due date under such subsection for fees,
may assess and collect such fees at any time in such fiscal
year, without any modification in the rate of the fees.
``(f) Crediting and Availability of Fees.--
``(1) In general.--Fees collected for a fiscal year
pursuant to subsection (a) shall be credited to the
appropriation account for salaries and expenses of the Food
and Drug Administration and shall be available in accordance
with appropriation Acts until expended without fiscal year
limitation. Such sums as may be necessary may be transferred
from the Food and Drug Administration salaries and expenses
appropriation account without fiscal year limitation to such
appropriation account for salaries and expenses with such
fiscal year limitation. The sums transferred shall be
available solely for the purposes described in paragraph (1)
of subsection (b), and the sums are subject to allocations
under paragraph (2) of such subsection.
``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--
``(A) First fiscal year.--For the first applicable fiscal
year--
``(i) there is authorized to be appropriated for fees under
subsection (a) an amount equal to the amount of increase
determined under subsection (b)(1)(A) by the Secretary (which
amount shall be published in the Federal Register); and
``(ii) in addition, there is authorized to be appropriated
for fees under subsection (a) an amount determined by the
Secretary to be necessary to carry out the purpose described
in subsection (b)(1)(B) (which amount shall be so published).
``(B) Subsequent fiscal years.--For each of the 4 fiscal
years following the first applicable fiscal year--
``(i) there is authorized to be appropriated for fees under
subsection (a) an amount equal to the amount that applied
under subparagraph (A)(i) for the first applicable fiscal
year, except that such amount shall be adjusted under
paragraph (3)(A) for the fiscal year involved; and
``(ii) in addition, there is authorized to be appropriated
for fees under subsection (a) an amount equal to the amount
that applied under subparagraph (A)(ii) for the first
applicable fiscal year, except that such amount shall be
adjusted under paragraph (3)(B) for the fiscal year involved.
``(C) Supplemental authorization of appropriations.--In
addition to sums authorized to be appropriated under
subparagraphs (A) and (B), there are authorized to be
appropriated, for the purposes described in subsection
(b)(1)(A), such sums as may be necessary for the first
applicable fiscal year and each of the 4 subsequent fiscal
years.
``(3) Adjustments.--
``(A) Agency cost of resources.--For each fiscal year other
than the first applicable fiscal year, the amount that
applied under paragraph (2)(A)(i) for the first applicable
fiscal year shall be multiplied by the adjustment factor.
``(B) Research program.--For each fiscal year other than
the first applicable fiscal year, the amount that applied
under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) for the first applicable fiscal
year shall be adjusted by the Secretary (and as adjusted
shall be published in the Federal Register) to reflect the
greater of--
``(i) the total percentage change that occurred since the
beginning of the first applicable fiscal year in the Consumer
Price

[[Page S1897]]

Index for All Urban Consumers (all items; United States city
average); or
``(ii) the total percentage change that occurred since the
beginning of the first applicable fiscal year in basic pay
under the General Schedule in accordance with section 5332 of
title 5, United States Code, as adjusted by any locality-
based comparability payment pursuant to section 5304 of such
title for Federal employees stationed in the District of
Columbia.
``(4) Offset.--Any amount of fees collected for a fiscal
year under subsection (a) that exceeds the amount of fees
specified in appropriation Acts for such fiscal year shall be
credited to the appropriation account of the Food and Drug
Administration as provided in paragraph (1), and shall be
subtracted from the amount of fees that would otherwise be
authorized to be collected under this section pursuant to
appropriation Acts for a subsequent fiscal year.
``(g) Collection of Unpaid Fees.--In any case in which the
Secretary does not receive payment of a fee assessed under
subsection (a) within 30 days after the fee is due, such fee
shall be treated as a claim of the United States Government
subject to subchapter II of chapter 37 of title 31, United
States Code.
``(h) Construction.--This section may not be construed as
requiring that the number of full-time equivalent positions
in the Department of Health and Human Services, for officers,
employers, and advisory committees not engaged in carrying
out section 409 with respect to genetic food additives be
reduced to offset the number of officers, employees, and
advisory committees so engaged.
``(i) Definition of Adjustment Factor.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `adjustment
factor' applicable to a fiscal year means the lower of--
``(A) the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (all
items; United States city average) for April of the preceding
fiscal year divided by such Index for April of the first
applicable fiscal year; or
``(B) the total of discretionary budget authority provided
for programs in categories other than the defense category
for the preceding fiscal year (as reported in the Office of
Management and Budget sequestration preview report, if
available, required under section 254(c) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
904(c))) divided by such budget authority for the first
applicable fiscal year (as reported in the Office of
Management and Budget final sequestration report submitted
for such year under section 254(f) of such Act).
``(2) Budget authority; category.--In this subsection, the
terms `budget authority' and `category' have the meanings
given such terms in section 250 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900).''.

SEC. 5. RULEMAKING; EFFECTIVE DATE; PREVIOUSLY UNREGULATED
MARKETED ADDITIVES.

(a) Rulemaking; Effective Date.--
(1) Rulemaking.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall by regulation establish criteria for carrying
out section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 349) in accordance with the amendments made by
section 3, and criteria for carrying out section 409A of such
Act (as added by section 4).
(2) Effective date.--Such amendments take effect on the
first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the date
of promulgation of the final regulation described in
paragraph (1).
(b) Previously Unregulated Marketed Additives.--
(1) In general.--In the case of a genetic food additive (as
defined in section 201(kk)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(kk)(4))) that in the United
States was in commercial use in food as of the day before the
date on which the final regulation described in subsection
(a) is promulgated, the amendments made by this Act apply to
the additive on the expiration of the 2-year period beginning
on the date on which the final regulation is promulgated,
subject to paragraph (2).
(2) User fees.--With respect to a genetic food additive
described in paragraph (1), such paragraph does not waive the
applicability of section 409A of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to a petition filed under section 409(b)(1) of
such Act (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(1)) that is filed before the
expiration of the 2-year period described in such
paragraph.<bullet>
______

By Mr. GRAHAM:
S. 2316. A bill to authorize the lease of real and personal property
under the jurisdiction of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

commercial space partnership act

<bullet> Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Commercial Space Partnership Act--legislation to encourage the
commercial development of space through the long term lease of real and
personal property held by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
The Cox Commission Report identified the need to expand domestic
launch capacity to meet the rapidly growing demand for commercial U.S.
launch services. It is vital that we increase our domestic launch
capacity, reduce our dependence on foreign launch providers and help
eliminate the transfer of critical U.S. technology. The Cox Report
specifically recommended that congressional committees ``report
legislation to encourage and stimulate further the expansion of such
capacity of competition.''
Mr. President, the Commercial Space Partnership Act is the third
piece of legislation I have introduced with the goal of increasing our
domestic launch capacity. The first was the Commercial Space Act, which
became law in 1998. The Act helped break the federal government's
monopoly on space travel by establishing a licensing framework for the
private sector's reusable launch vehicles. It also provided for the
conversion of excess ballistic missiles into space transportation
vehicles, thus helping to reduce our nation's cost of access to space.
Last year, along with a similar bipartisan coalition, I introduced
the Spaceport Investment Act. This bill would allow spaceports to issue
tax-free bonds to attract private sector investment dollars for launch
infrastructure. It achieves the dual purpose of reducing pressure on
the federal budget while stimulating this crucial industry.
Mr. President, the third leg of this effort is the Commercial Space
Partnership Act. Presently, NASA holds real and personal property that
would be invaluable in developing new domestic launch resources. At the
same time, however, NASA has no appropriations with which to cover the
costs that result from integrating new commercial launch facilities
into its existing infrastructure. The Commercial Space Partnership Act
is designed to resolve this problem by allowing public and private
interests with development money to lease property from NASA for the
purpose of expanding commercial launch capacity, and by permitting NASA
to make use of some of the lease proceeds to cover the resulting costs
it incurs.
The Commercial Space Partnership Act will empower NASA to assist the
commercial space industry in expanding the domestic launch capacity at
no cost to the taxpayer. Under this new lease authority, NASA will
receive fair market value for its property and will further be
empowered to apply the lease proceeds to cover the full costs resulting
from the integration of the new commercial launch facilities into
NASA's existing infrastructure. The Act further provides that any lease
proceeds in excess of NASA's full costs shall be forwarded to the U.S.
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
The fair market value approach also ensures that NASA property will
be leased to industry at a price which is comparable to other similar
commercial properties. NASA's property will thereby be leased in a fair
and equitable manner that will give in an unfair advantage to those
with preexisting launch facilities in commercial locations.
Mr. President, the Commercial Space Partnership Act can only
encourage and stimulate the domestic launch capacity of our country. I
urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this important effort by
co-sponsoring this bill.<bullet>
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Craig):
S. 2317. A bill to provide incentives to encourage stronger truth in
sentencing of violent offenders, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

stop allowing felons early release (SAFER) Act

______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Robb):
S. 2318. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to eliminate
good time credits for prisoners serving a sentence for a crime of
violence, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

100 percent truth-in-sentencing act

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer legislation today that I
introduced previously but on which I was not able to get action during
a previous Congress, and that is legislation dealing with truth in
sentencing.
Let me talk about some folks who have committed violent acts in this
country. Recently, I read in a local paper here that a man named
Kenneth Lodowski is walking around this metropolitan area. He was
sentenced to die in 1984. He murdered two people--one

[[Page S1898]]

an off-duty police officer, and the other a clerk in a convenience
store. He was sentenced to die in 1984 for two murders. The prosecuting
attorney called the murders ``as vicious a crime as I have experienced
in my 24 years as State's attorney.''
That is the crime.
After a series of appeals, this man, who was sentenced to death for
two murders, had the sentence changed to life imprisonment without
parole, then changed again, then changed again. Finally, the sentence
was 25 years in prison. After 16 years in prison, this person is
walking around the streets of this metropolitan area--free.
Why? Here is the reason. If you commit murder in this country, on
average, you are going to be sentenced to about 21 years in prison. On
average, a murderer will be sentenced to about 21 years in prison but
will serve, on average, only 10 years behind bars.
Most people will be startled to hear that. But let me say that again.
The average sentence served by a murderer in this country is about 10
years. Why? Because people are let out early. Murderers go to prison,
and they get ``good time,'' time off for good behavior: If you want to
get out early, just be good in prison, and we will put you back on the
streets.
What happens when you are put back on the streets? You read the
stories. I have spoken a number of times about Bettina Pruckmayr, a
young woman who moved to town with great expectations, a young lawyer.
She was abducted in a carjacking, then taken to an ATM machine to
extract cash, and then stabbed 30 times in a horrible death. This
young, 26-year-old attorney who was just beginning her career in this
town, was stabbed 30 times by a man who had previously been convicted
of rape, armed robbery, and murder. That man was on the streets
legally, let out by a criminal justice system that does not keep people
who we know are violent behind bars--let out early.
Or Jonathan Hall, about whom I have spoken in this Chamber, 13 years
old, stabbed by a man who moved into his neighborhood, stabbed 60 times
with a screwdriver, thrown down an embankment into a pond. When they
found young Jonathan, after being stabbed 60 times, they found dirt and
grass between his fingers because even though he had been stabbed 60
times, this 13-year-old boy had tried to crawl out of that pond into
which this fellow had thrown him. His clenched fists described his will
to survive. But he did not; he died.
Jonathan's murderer was a career criminal. He had been convicted
previously of kidnapping and murder, but let out, and was living in the
neighborhood and able to murder this 13-year-old boy--paroled just 1
year before he took Jonathan's life.
And Julie Schultz from ND, a woman whom I know fairly well, the
mother of three, who stopped at a highway rest area one day on a
pleasant, tranquil afternoon in North Dakota. She was attacked by a man
who tried to rape her, slashed her throat, cutting her vocal cords, and
left her for dead at a rest area on Highway 2 in northern North Dakota.

She survived the attack. In fact, I saw Julie just 2 weeks ago at the
Minneapolis Airport. She survived the attack but has lasting scars and
difficulties as a result of that attack.
Who attacked Julie? The same kind of person who attacked others
around this country--people who we knew were violent, were put behind
bars, and let out early because the criminal justice system says: You
only have to spend 10 years, on average, in jail if you commit a murder
in this country. We will sentence you to 21 years, but you only have to
spend 10 years behind bars because we will let you out early if you are
good.
The fellow who slashed the throat of Julie Schultz served 7 years of
a life sentence in the State of Washington before being released,
before being on Highway 2, on an afternoon in North Dakota, able to do
what he did to Julie Schultz.
Sara Paulson, 8 years old, went out for a bike ride one day and never
came back. Her body was found under a pine tree less than 200 yards
from her home. She had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death.
Her murderer had been previously sentenced to prison for rape but was
paroled after serving less than half of his sentence.
I am introducing legislation today, cosponsored by Senator Craig of
Idaho, and another piece of legislation cosponsored by Senator Craig of
Idaho and Senator Robb of Virginia. The point of it is very simple. I
believe in the criminal justice system we ought to have different
standards for those who commit acts of violence. Everyone in this
country who commits acts of violence ought to understand: You go to
prison, and your address is going to be your jail cell until the end of
your sentence.
Do you know what the prison folks say to us? We need mechanisms by
which we can persuade inmates to behave in prison. The mechanism is to
dangle before them an early-out, time off for good behavior. So if we
are able to reward them for behaving in prison, we are able to manage
them.
I say to them, what about managing them on the streets?
As I stated, there is a fellow who is walking the streets in this
metropolitan area now, after 16 years, who killed a policeman and
killed a clerk in a store, because he was released early.
What about the people on the streets who are going to meet that
fellow? What about their safety? Who is managing that violent offender
now? Who managed the violent offender who viciously attacked Julie
Schultz? Who managed the behavior of the man who violently attacked
Jonathan Hall? Who was watching the fellow who violently attacked
Bettina Pruckmayr?
The answer is, nobody.
Let us segregate and separate those who commit violent acts in this
country from those who are nonviolent offenders. Let's incarcerate them
all. I do not mind early release for nonviolent offenders. But for
violent offenders, we ought to have a society in which everyone
understands: If you commit an act of violence, the prison cell is your
address to the end of your sentence. No good time off for good
behavior, no getting back to the streets early. You are going to be in
prison to serve your term.
It is the only way, it seems to me, to protect innocent folks, such
as Bettina Pruckmayr and Jonathan Hall and Julie Schultz, and so many
others who have been victimized by people we know were violent and
should have been in a prison cell but, instead, were on the streets
early because prison authorities let them out early with ``good time''
credits and ``good time'' releases.
Let's stop it. My legislation will do that. It says to the States:
You must do it. If you do not, you are going to lose certain grants
under the Criminal Justice Act. Is that tough? Yes. But we must, it
seems to me, take these steps to change this.
Again, let me conclude. My colleague from Illinois, I know, wants the
floor. But early releases--these are State prisons, incidentally--
sexual assault: Sentenced for 10 years, on average, and you are out in
5; robbery: Sentenced for 8 years, on average, and you are out in 4;
murder: Sentenced for 21 years, on average, and you are out in 10.
Everyone in this Chamber knows the horrors of crime, if not
personally with them and their family, then a neighbor, a friend, a
relative.

We know the current system isn't working. Too many violent offenders
are sent back to America's streets. There is a way to stop that. Yes, I
know we have too many people in prison; But the way to be smart about
it is to segregate those who are violent offenders from those who are
nonviolent. This piece of legislation would start us doing that.
If any of us, God forbid, would lose a loved one or relative because
of a vicious crime committed by someone who should have been in prison
but was let out early, we would spend the rest of our days trying to
pass legislation like this. We ought to do it.
Let me again say, the piece of legislation I began to talk about
today, because of the escape in Chula Vista, CA, has resulted in a
convicted murderer walking around on the loose, a man named Prestridge.
A violent murderer supposed to be spending the rest of his life behind
bars is now loose because he was being transported by a private company
and incompetence allowed these violent offenders, two of them, to
escape--if we pass Jeanna's bill, named after the young 11-year-old who
was violently murdered by Kyle Bell, if we pass that piece of
legislation, I won't

[[Page S1899]]

be here speaking about those circumstances again because they won't
happen again. I hope we will be able to address both of those pieces of
legislation in the remaining months of this Congress.
I thank my colleague from Illinois. I wanted to introduce this
legislation and talk about it at some length today. I know he is here
to talk as well. I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the remarks made by
my friend and colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. I know his
feelings are heartfelt about this issue. I know he speaks from the
heart when he tells us about these terrible tragedies to which many
families in America have been subjected. I hope he feels, as I do, that
when it comes to violent crime, crimes involving guns and weapons,
sexual assault, and the like, we should have no tolerance for that
conduct. And when it comes to sentencing those responsible for the
crimes, we should do it in a manner to protect American citizens and
families across the board. I agree with him on that score. I think if
we are ever going to stop the plague of violent crime in this country,
we have to deal with enforcement of the law in a realistic way to
protect families.
Two weeks ago, I was stuck in an airport in our State capital, my
hometown of Springfield, which tends to be part of the job description
of being a Senator. The director of the Department of Corrections, Don
Snyder, came up and said hello, and we had a chance to chat about
incarceration in my home State of Illinois.
There are currently, if I remember the figures off the top of my
head, about 45,000 people incarcerated in the State prison system in
Illinois. He told me a couple of things that were interesting. Each
year, we release from the Illinois prison system over 20,000 inmates.
We have this false notion that once a person is incarcerated, they are
there forever.
As the Senator from North Dakota has indicated, even for the most
violent criminals, that is not the case. About half of them come out
each year. When you consider all the crimes for which people are
incarcerated, they are back on the street. The question we obviously
have to ask is whether they will commit another crime. Unfortunately,
about half of them do. Those crimes, when repeated, test our resolve to
not only have a system that involves punishment but, where appropriate,
rehabilitation.

This director of our Department of Corrections gave me an
illustration. He said, if you consider a crime involving drugs to be
the possession of a thimbleful of cocaine, in 1987, the Illinois prison
system had 400 people incarcerated for the possession of a thimbleful
of cocaine. In the year 2000, we have 9,100 inmates incarcerated for
the possession of a thimbleful of cocaine. He said: Conceding the fact
that we want to end the drug scourge in our country and we want to be
effective in doing it, the average drug criminal in Illinois is
incarcerated for 7\1/2\ months. It is hard to believe that we are going
to teach many lessons in 7\1/2\ months, but that is the average.
Here is the thing that is troubling. During the period of that
incarceration in prison for the commission of the drug crime, there is
virtually nothing done to deal with the underlying addiction of the
inmate. So when they are released in 7\1/2\ months or a little longer,
they are back on the streets, still addicted, likely to run back into
the same drug culture and be exposed to the same forces that put them
in prison in the first place.
He asked me a valid question: Why aren't we doing something, while we
have these people who have been convicted and incarcerated, to try to
get them off drugs?
I think that is a reasonable suggestion. I am not for letting violent
criminals out early, but for those who are in for drug crimes, we ought
to have a policy nationwide that deals with some effort to stop their
addiction, to end their addiction, to try, when they are released, to
give them a chance to lead a normal life that doesn't include another
victim at some later point. I hope we address that.
He also indicated to me that over 80 percent of the women in the
Illinois prison system have children. And while they are in prison
separated from those children, oftentimes those children are in
terrible circumstances. We saw in the State of Michigan a few weeks ago
when a 6-year-old boy took a gun to school and killed a little
classmate. Then we find his father was in prison. His mother is
addicted. He was stuck in a home where he slept on a couch. No one paid
attention to him. Frankly, a gun was left on a table where he could get
his hands on it and take it to school.
That kind of neglect occurs too often in America. It is invited in a
situation where mothers are incarcerated and no one is there to care
for their kids.
This Director of Corrections said: Can we keep the link between the
mother and child alive? We find that the women who are inmates really
want to turn their lives around when they think their family can stay
together and has a future. We know that the kids would like to keep a
relationship with the mother who may turn her life around.
These are troubling questions. In a nation where we incarcerate more
per capita than any other country in the world, we have to face these
realities. People are coming out of prison. When they come out, we have
to wonder whether there has been a part of their experience in prison
that will lead to a better life for them and a safer America and less
recidivism.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. I agree with what the Senator has said. Nearly half of
the people incarcerated in this country are violent offenders, half are
not. It seems to me we ought to be smarter in the way we incarcerate
them, those half whom we know are violent. For those we know are
violent, we should not be incentivizing them to move to the streets
earlier. We ought to try to find ways to keep them in prison to the end
of their term. Those who are nonviolent they have to be punished, serve
their time. But they are not violent and are not a threat to people.
Senator John Glenn used to talk about this in the Senate. He used to
bring with him a model of a Quonset hut, apparently made in Ohio. He
said: This is the kind of place I lived in during the Korean war. My
wife and I lived in one of these huts various places around the world.
It was Marine housing, among other things. He said, for nonviolent
offenders, we could put up some barbed wire and build Quonset huts. It
doesn't take a fortune to create incarceration compounds for nonviolent
offenders. We don't have to put them in lockups that are massively
secure, lockups that cost a fortune. Use those lockups for violent
offenders; then give yourself enough space to keep violent offenders
behind bars to the end of their term.
That is the point I was making. I don't disagree with anything the
Senator from Illinois said about the crime factor inside the prisons
and about the circumstances these days of mandatory sentencing and
crimes that have been nonviolent that have crowded the prison system. I
thank the Senator for his comments.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I appreciate the
importance of the issue of incarceration and corrections.
______

By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Allard):
S. 2319. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
establish a voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Plan under which
eligible Medicare beneficiaries may elect to receive coverage under the
Rx Option for outpatient prescription drugs and a combined deductible;
to the Committee on Finance.

voluntary medicare prescription drug plan act of 2000

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
a bill entitled the ``Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Act of
2000.'' This bill allows seniors to enroll in a new program under
Medicare which will provide for prescription drug coverage. This is an
issue about which, as you know, many seniors are very concerned.
Seniors who join this plan would have a combined Part A and Part B
deductible of $675, which would include all hospital, medical, and drug
expenses. After the deductible is met, seniors would receive 50-percent
coverage of their prescription drug costs

[[Page S1900]]

up to $5,000. If a senior has $2,000 in expenses for prescription
drugs, $1,000 of that would be paid for under this plan.
I have spoken to senior groups and health care providers, both in
Washington as well as in my State over the past several weeks, about
this proposal. The response has been very enthusiastic. Seniors want a
prescription drug benefit. Doctors and nurses understand the importance
of providing coverage for seniors because of the expense of
prescription drugs in this country. It would be a victory for seniors
and for health care in this country if we could provide this coverage
to them.
I have had discussions with many of my colleagues in the Senate who
are working on this very issue. We have all heard from our constituents
about the importance of prescription drugs. Senators Breaux and Frist
have included prescription drugs in their overall Medicare reform
package. Senators Kennedy, Snowe, Wyden, Grams, and Jeffords all have
proposed various plans that provide some level of prescription drug
coverage in Medicare, and many others are working on separate proposals
of their own.
In a recent press conference, President Clinton and Senator Daschle
outlined their goals for prescription drug coverage. Leaving the
politics aside, the fact that elected leaders from both parties are
looking at this issue of prescription drug coverage is good news for
the senior citizens of America. I have talked with several of my
Republican colleagues, and it is clear to me there is overwhelming
support for allowing seniors to have this choice. The only question
among us all is how we can responsibly structure such a program.
I have heard from seniors in my State about what they are looking for
in a prescription drug plan.
First, they are concerned about the solvency of the Medicare program.
They want a program that does not add some huge financial burden to the
trust fund which will be passed on to their grandchildren. They do not
want to increase the national debt, either. Yes, seniors are concerned
about the national debt. Ask them the next time you speak to a seniors
group.
The President's proposal, as it is written, blows a $168 billion hole
in the trust fund, threatening its solvency.
Second, seniors do not want new premiums. My plan requires no premium
hike for seniors. Zero. The President's plan requires a $51 annual
premium increase.
I will repeat that. Seniors do not want to blow a hole in the
national debt. They do not want to inflate the debt. Yet the
President's proposal adds $168 billion that is going to come out of
that trust fund, threatening its solvency. And seniors do not want more
premiums. My plan has no increase in premiums; the President's plan,
$51--just to start--annual premium increase.

The guiding principles of this plan, which may come as a shock to
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, are the same
principles as those of the President and the distinguished minority
leader for any prescription drug plan. I want to repeat the six
principles the minority leader has introduced on behalf of the
President. I am going to add three more to those six and make it even
better. I do not know why we cannot have almost unanimous support for
this piece of legislation.
First of all, under the plan the Senate Democrats are committed to
passing this year, there are six basic principles. I agree with them
all.
No. 1, it is voluntary. Medicare beneficiaries who now have
dependable, affordable prescription drug coverage should have the
option of keeping that coverage.
No. 2, it is accessible to all beneficiaries. I agree with that. A
hallmark of Medicare is that all beneficiaries, even those in rural or
underserved communities, have access to dependable health care. It
should be accessible to everybody. I agree with the second principle.
No. 3, it is designed to provide meaningful protection and bargaining
power for seniors. A Medicare drug benefit should assist seniors with
the high cost of drugs and protect them against excessive, out-of-
pocket expenses. I agree with that.
No. 4, it should be affordable to all beneficiaries, and it should be
affordable to the Medicare program itself.
Medicare should contribute enough toward the prescription drug
premium to make it affordable and attractive for all beneficiaries and
to ensure the viability of the benefit. I agree with that.
No. 5, administered using private-sector entities and competitive
purchasing techniques. In other words, the program is administered by
using private sector entities and competitive purchasing techniques.
The management of the prescription drug benefit should mirror the
practices employed by private insurers. Discounts should be achieved
through competition, not through price controls or regulation.
I agree with that.
We are five for five.
No. 6, consistent with broader Medicare reform, the addition of a
Medicare drug benefit should be consistent with an overall plan to
strengthen and modernize Medicare. Medicare will face the same
demographic strain as Social Security when the baby boomer generation
retires. So it is consistent with broader Medicare reform.
I agree with that.
There are six principles I can support.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join me
now with three more principles I would add:
No. 1, that the plan be revenue neutral to preserve and protect the
financial integrity of the Medicare trust fund. In other words, it does
not cost the Government any more money.
No. 2, that the plan does not raise Medicare premiums. Their plan,
$51 annually to seniors; my plan, zero. So no increase in premiums.
And No. 3, that full benefits be provided, not in 2009, as the
administration plan proposes, but in 2001, 8 years sooner.
So my three principles--revenue neutral, do not raise the premiums,
provide the benefits in 2001--those three principles enhance and
strengthen the other six principles put forth by my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle.
My plan accomplishes all three of the principles I have outlined.
Let me briefly explain how it works.
A senior already enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B--already enrolled
in Part A, hospital, and Part B, doctor--will have the option of
choosing my new voluntary prescription drug plan. It is their option.
Nobody is mandated; they choose. It will cover 50 percent of their
prescription drug costs toward the first $5,000 worth of prescription
drugs. If they buy $4,000 worth of drugs--$2,000 for prescription
drugs; $2,000 is covered.
How do we do this? How do we make it work? Medicare Part A--under the
old system, the current system--has a $776 deductible. Medicare Part B
has a $100 deductible. In other words, if you go to the doctor, the
first $100 you pay for; if you go to the hospital, the first $776 you
pay for; the rest, Medicare pays. That is a total of $876 you will have
to pay.
My new plan would create one new deductible, combining those two
deductibles of Part A and Part B into one deductible of $675, which
would apply to all hospital costs, all doctor visits, and prescription
drugs--50 cents on the dollar up to $5,000. And the prescription drug
costs apply to the deductible, so every dollar you pay for a
prescription moves you forward to meet the deductible.
Once the $675 deductible is met by the Medicare recipient, Medicare
then will pay 50 percent of the cost toward the first $5,000 worth of
drugs the senior purchases.
However, the senior could not purchase a Medigap plan that would pay
for the $675 deductible. This must be paid for by the senior. But if
you have a Medigap plan now as a senior, you will not need it.
As a result, seniors would save about $550 under Medigap plans if
they traded their current Medigap plan for my new prescription drug
plan. Again, it is their option. It is voluntary. Seniors could even
use their $550 in savings to pay the $675 deductible.
If you are a senior out there, and you have Part A, Part B, and you
are paying $675 toward the deductible, and you have Medigap insurance
of $550, you now can put the $550 toward the $675 to meet your
deductible. So you are going to have $550 in savings. You can put that
toward the $675, and you are already two-thirds of the way there.
But how do you get the cost savings?
As my colleagues are aware, according to the National Bipartisan
Commission on the Future of Medicare, the

[[Page S1901]]

Federal Government pays about $1,400 more per senior if the senior owns
a Medigap plan that covers their Part A and Part B deductible. This,
generally, is because of our overutilization of hospital and doctor
visits by the senior. The savings result because Medicare will not have
to pay this $1,400 per person per year out of the trust fund.
As I mentioned, all hospital, physician, and prescription drug costs
would count toward this $675 deductible. Once it was met, the senior
would receive regular, above-the-deductible Medicare coverage, just as
you get now. Or if you worked out the numbers and decided against my
plan, then you would not have to select it; it is your choice.
I believe the vast majority of seniors will benefit from this plan.
In fact, every senior with a Medigap plan will definitely benefit. Any
senior with a prescription drug expenditure of more than $15 a month
will benefit. Today, the Medicare Part A and Part B deductible totals
$876, which most seniors cover by an average $1,611 Medigap insurance
premium.
These estimates, as well as the estimate that the bill is budget
neutral, come from Mr. Guy King, formerly chief actuary for the Health
Care Financing Administration under President Clinton. I received a
letter just this morning from Mr. King, from which I would like to
quote:

Dear Senator Smith: This is in response to your letter of
March 9, 2000, asking for my analysis of legislation you
intend to introduce in the Senate. The proposed legislation
establishes a voluntary prescription drug benefit, the
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, under the Medicare program.
Under the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, the current Part
A and Part B deductibles would be replaced by a single
deductible of $675 which would also be applicable to the new
prescription drug benefit. The Medicare program would pay
fifty percent of the cost of prescription drugs, up to a
maximum of $2,500 after satisfaction of the deductible.

He goes on to describe it.
Quoting further:

As you requested, I performed an analysis of the proposed
legislation. This analysis is based on Medicare and
prescription drug data I obtained from the Health Care
Financing Administration. My analysis indicates that the
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, as described above, would be
cost-neutral to the Medicare program if it were made
available on a voluntary basis to all beneficiaries except
those also covered by Medicaid.

It is signed by Guy King.
Let me just conclude speaking on this bill by saying, the benefits in
this plan are delivered by private companies and regional entities,
such as pharmaceutical benefit managers. These entities would negotiate
with large drug companies and provide the drugs to Medicare seniors.
Finally, according to the actuaries who reviewed the legislation,
there will be no adverse selection. Both the healthy and the sick will
have an incentive to choose this plan. Everybody is in.
There are many different methods of providing prescription drug
coverage for seniors, but I urge my colleagues--I plead with my
colleagues--to look to the revenue-neutral methods that fund this
benefit by the elimination of waste in the present system. I urge my
colleagues to resist the temptation to raise Medicare premiums on the
people who can least afford it.
I have vivid memories of seniors rocking Mr. Rostenkowski's car a few
years ago when he decided to raise Medicare premiums. Let's look at it
more specifically. The House's fiscal year 2001 budget--this is
important--sets $40 billion aside for prescription drugs. In the
Senate, we are expected to do a budget that is going to set aside $20
billion.

We don't need either under my plan. We don't need any more money. We
don't need $20 billion. We don't need $40 billion. We don't need $2
billion. We don't need any billions. Let's use the money for debt
reduction or tax credits for the uninsured rather than providing for
prescription drugs, when we could use my revenue-neutral prescription
plan instead.
I must say, in all candor, some of the deflections I have had put in
my way on this issue by some in this body are disturbing. I will not
get into details. I want people to listen and look at this plan. It is
a good plan. I would like to have the opportunity to be able to talk
about it in more detail with some of my colleagues, because it makes no
sense to take $40 billion max, anywhere from $20 billion to $40
billion, and put it into this prescription plan when we don't need to.
Let's put it on the debt or let's buy something else with it that is
worthwhile. We don't need it.
A neutral plan that does not raise premiums, that takes effect in
2001 is a good plan. It is a good idea. We need to implement it.
I urge my colleagues to take a look at this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. King be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

King Associates,

Annapolis, MD, March 28, 2000.
Hon. Bob Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: This is in response to your letter of
March 9, 2000 asking for my analysis of legislation you
intend to introduce in the Senate. The proposed legislation
establishes a voluntary prescription drug benefit, the
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, under the Medicare program.
Under the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, the current Part
A and Part B deductibles would be replaced by a single
deductible of $675 which would also be applicable to the new
prescription drug benefit. The Medicare program would pay
fifty percent of the cost of prescription drugs, up to a
maximum of $2,500 after satisfaction of the deductible. A
beneficiary who chooses the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan
would not be allowed to purchase a Medicare supplement policy
that fills in the $675 deductible, so special Medicare
supplement policies for those who choose the option would be
allowed.
The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan would be available, on
a voluntary basis, to any Medicare beneficiary not also
covered by Medicaid. The possibility of anti-selection is an
important consideration for a plan that is available to all
Medicare beneficiaries as an option. I believe that the
design features of the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, as
outlined in your legislation, minimize the impact of anti-
selection.
As you requested, I performed an analysis of the proposed
legislation. This analysis is based on Medicare and
prescription drug data that I obtained from the Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA). My analysis indicates that
the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, as described above,
would be cost-neutral to the Medicare program if it were made
available on a voluntary basis to all beneficiaries except
those also covered by Medicaid.
If you should have any questions regarding my analysis,
please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Roland E. (Guy) King,
President.
______

By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Frist, Mrs.
Lincoln, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2320. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
refundable tax credit for health insurance costs, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

health coverage, access, relief, and equity (CARE) Act

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with my
colleagues in introducing the Health Coverage, Access, Relief and
Equity Act or Health CARE Act. This legislation will provide low-income
Americans with a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health
insurance coverage. This effort marks the first major bipartisan,
bicameral, market-based initiative on behalf of the uninsured since
1994.
I believe the issue of access to health coverage for the uninsured
must be a top national priority. The uninsured often go without needed
health care or face unaffordable medical bills. Insurance coverage
guarantees providers reimbursement for their services, and it helps
contain costs by encouraging more appropriate use of the health care
system.
Unfortunately, the main source of coverage--employer-based
insurance--is simply not available to a significant number of working
Americans and their families. High health care cost increases have
caused more people to become uninsured.
New Census Bureau data indicate that there are now 44 million
Americans with no health coverage, an increase of one million from last
year. This number is unacceptable for a prosperous nation with a strong
economy.
A new poll indicates that our bill is consistent with the main health
care concern of average voters. When asked what they think is the most
important problem about our health care system that the government
should address, the top choice--selected by 29 percent of those
sampled--was universal coverage.

[[Page S1902]]

I believe the legislation we're introducing today can provide the
necessary foundation for achieving the goal of expanded health
coverage. The Health CARE tax credit is targeted to those who are most
in need of help, due to their lack of income, access to subsidized
employment-based coverage, and ineligibility for public programs.
About one-half of the full-time working poor were uninsured last
year. Many of these individuals work for small firms. In my own state
of Vermont, only 27 percent of workers in firms employing fewer than 10
people are offered health insurance.
These uninsured working Americans have one thing in common: they are
low wage workers--with nearly 70 percent making less than two times the
minimum wage. Without additional resources, health insurance coverage
is either beyond their reach or only purchased by giving up other basic
necessities of life.
The Health CARE Act will provide a refundable tax credit to help low
and moderate-income individuals and families purchase health insurance.
The legislation will provide a refundable tax credit of $1,000 for
the purchase of individual coverage to those with adjusted gross
incomes of up to $35,000 and it will provide a $2,000 credit for the
purchase of family coverage for those with AGI of up to $55,000.
The initial estimates show that this proposal will help almost 9
million Americans. It will provide health coverage for 3.2 million
Americans who are presently uninsured and give needed financial relief
to another 5.5 million low-income Americans who are using their scarce
dollars to buy individual health insurance policies.
Realizing that insurance coverage is not the single answer for our
nation's health access problems, we are also developing additional
components to the Health CARE Act which will focus on improving access
to health care services and safety net providers, such as community
health centers and rural health clinics.
We must do whatever we can to ensure that the Safety Net already in
place becomes stronger and more reliable. Just last week, the
Subcommittee on Public Health held a hearing on three of our nation's
safety provider programs--the Consolidated Health Centers program, the
National Health Service Corps, and the Community Access program.
I look forward to working with Senator Frist on shoring up the Safety
Net, and together we plan to introduce an additional component to the
CARE Act on Safety Net providers that will become part of the larger
health CARE Package.
Our goal for this legislation is to maximize health coverage, tax
equity, and cost efficiency, and we believe it should be included as an
important element in any tax package that Congress enacts this year.
The Health CARE Act will increase the number of Americans who have
health insurance coverage by filling key gaps in the current system and
supporting a system of health care financial and delivery that
complements the employment-based system.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will take a look at this. I hope
they will join me in making sure we do what must be done to make sure
the people who need it the most gets it.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2320

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 ``Health Coverage, Access,
Relief, and Equity (C.A.R.E.) Act''.

SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
refundable personal credits) is amended by redesignating
section 35 as section 36 and inserting after section 34 the
following new section:

``SEC. 35. HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal to the
amount paid during the taxable year for qualified health
insurance for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and
dependents.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Maximum dollar amount.--
``(A) In general.--The amount allowed as a credit under
subsection (a) to the taxpayer for the taxable year shall not
exceed the sum of the monthly limitations for coverage months
during such taxable year.
``(B) Monthly limitation.--The monthly limitation for each
coverage month during the taxable year is the amount equal to
1/12 of--
``(i) in the case of self-only coverage, $1,000, and
``(ii) in the case of family coverage, $2,000.
``(2) Phaseout of credit.--
``(A) In general.--The amount which would (but for this
paragraph) be taken into account under subsection (a) shall
be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount determined
under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Amount of reduction.--The amount determined under
this subparagraph is the amount which bears the same ratio to
the amount which would be so taken into account as--
``(i) the excess of--

``(I) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for
such taxable year, over
``(II) $35,000 ($55,000 in the case of family coverage),
bears to

``(ii) $10,000.
``(C) Modified adjusted gross income.--The term `modified
adjusted gross income' means adjusted gross income
determined--
``(i) without regard to this section and sections 911, 931,
and 933, and
``(ii) after application of sections 86, 135, 137, 219,
221, and 469.
``(3) Coordination with deduction for health insurance
costs of self-employed individuals.--In the case of a
taxpayer who is eligible to deduct any amount under section
162(l) for the taxable year, this section shall apply only if
the taxpayer elects not to claim any amount as a deduction
under such section for such year.
``(c) Coverage Month Defined.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `coverage month' means, with
respect to an individual, any month if--
``(A) as of the first day of such month such individual is
covered by qualified health insurance, and
``(B) the premium for coverage under such insurance for
such month is paid by the taxpayer.
``(2) Employer-subsidized coverage.--
``(A) In general.--Such term shall not include any month
for which such individual is eligible to participate in any
subsidized health plan (within the meaning of section
162(l)(2)) maintained by any employer of the taxpayer or of
the spouse of the taxpayer.
``(B) Premiums to nonsubsidized plans.--If an employer of
the taxpayer or the spouse of the taxpayer maintains a health
plan which is not a subsidized health plan (as so defined)
and which constitutes qualified health insurance, employee
contributions to the plan shall be treated as amounts paid
for qualified health insurance.
``(3) Cafeteria plan and flexible spending account
beneficiaries.--Such term shall not include any month during
a taxable year if any amount is not includible in the gross
income of the taxpayer for such year under section 106 with
respect to--
``(A) a benefit chosen under a cafeteria plan (as defined
in section 125(d)), or
``(B) a benefit provided under a flexible spending or
similar arrangement.
``(4) Medicare and medicaid.--Such term shall not include
any month during a taxable year with respect to an individual
if, as of the first day of such month, such individual--
``(A) is eligible for any benefits under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act, or
``(B) is eligible to participate in the program under title
XIX or XXI of such Act.
``(5) Certain other coverage.--Such term shall not include
any month during a taxable year with respect to an individual
if, as of the first day of such month, such individual is
eligible--
``(A) for benefits under chapter 17 of title 38, United
States Code,
``(B) for benefits under chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code,
``(C) to participate in the program under chapter 89 of
title 5, United States Code, or
``(D) for benefits under any medical care program under the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act or any other provision of
law.
``(6) Prisoners.--Such term shall not include any month
with respect to an individual if, as of the first day of such
month, such individual is imprisoned under Federal, State, or
local authority.
``(d) Qualified Health Insurance.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualified health insurance' means health
insurance coverage (as defined in section 9832(b)(1)(A)),
including coverage under a high deductible health plan (as
defined in section 220(c)(2)) or a COBRA continuation
provision (as defined in section 9832(d)(1)).
``(e) Medical Savings Account Contributions.--
``(1) In general.--If a deduction would (but for paragraph
(2)) be allowed under section 220 to the taxpayer for a
payment for the taxable year to the medical savings account
of an individual, subsection (a) shall be applied by treating
such payment as a payment for qualified health insurance for
such individual.
``(2) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under section 220 for that portion of the payments
otherwise allowable as a deduction under section 220 for the
taxable year which is equal to the

[[Page S1903]]

amount of credit allowed for such taxable year by reason of
this subsection.
``(f) Special Rules.--
``(1) Coordination with medical expense deduction.--The
amount which would (but for this paragraph) be taken into
account by the taxpayer under section 213 for the taxable
year shall be reduced by the credit (if any) allowed by this
section to the taxpayer for such year.
``(2) Denial of credit to dependents.--No credit shall be
allowed under this section to any individual with respect to
whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another
taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in
which such individual's taxable year begins.
``(3) Coordination with advance payment.--Rules similar to
the rules of section 32(g) shall apply to any credit to which
this section applies.
``(g) Expenses Must Be Substantiated.--A payment for
insurance to which subsection (a) applies may be taken into
account under this section only if the taxpayer substantiates
such payment in such form as the Secretary may prescribe.
``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this section, including regulations under which--
``(1) an awareness campaign is established to educate the
public, insurance issuers, and agents or others who market
health insurance about the requirements and procedures under
this section, including--
``(A) criteria for insurance products and group health
coverage which constitute qualified health insurance under
this section, and
``(B) guidelines for marketing schemes and practices which
are appropriate and acceptable in connection with the credit
under this section, and
``(2) periodic reviews or audits of health insurance
policies and group health plans (and related promotional
marketing materials) which are marketed to eligible taxpayers
under this section are conducted for the purpose of
determining--
``(A) whether such policies and plans constitute qualified
health insurance under this section, and
``(B) whether offenses described in section 7276 occur.''.
(b) Information Reporting.--
(1) In general.--Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of
chapter 61 of such Code (relating to information concerning
transactions with other persons) is amended by inserting
after section 6050S the following new section:

``SEC. 6050T. RETURNS RELATING TO PAYMENTS FOR QUALIFIED
HEALTH INSURANCE.

``(a) In General.--Any person who, in connection with a
trade or business conducted by such person, receives payments
during any calendar year from any individual for coverage of
such individual or any other individual under creditable
health insurance, shall make the return described in
subsection (b) (at such time as the Secretary may by
regulations prescribe) with respect to each individual from
whom such payments were received.
``(b) Form and Manner of Returns.--A return is described in
this subsection if such return--
``(1) is in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, and
``(2) contains--
``(A) the name, address, and TIN of the individual from
whom payments described in subsection (a) were received,
``(B) the name, address, and TIN of each individual who was
provided by such person with coverage under creditable health
insurance by reason of such payments and the period of such
coverage,
``(C) the aggregate amount of payments described in
subsection (a),
``(D) the qualified health insurance credit advance amount
(as defined in section 7527(e)) received by such person with
respect to the individual described in subparagraph (A), and
``(E) such other information as the Secretary may
reasonably prescribe.
``(c) Creditable Health Insurance.--For purposes of this
section, the term `creditable health insurance' means
qualified health insurance (as defined in section 35(d))
other than--
``(1) insurance under a subsidized group health plan
maintained by an employer, or
``(2) to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by
the Secretary, any other insurance covering an individual if
no credit is allowable under section 35 with respect to such
coverage.
``(d) Statements To Be Furnished to Individuals With
Respect to Whom Information Is Required.--Every person
required to make a return under subsection (a) shall furnish
to each individual whose name is required under subsection
(b)(2)(A) to be set forth in such return a written statement
showing--
``(1) the name and address of the person required to make
such return and the phone number of the information contact
for such person,
``(2) the aggregate amount of payments described in
subsection (a) received by the person required to make such
return from the individual to whom the statement is required
to be furnished,
``(3) the information required under subsection (b)(2)(B)
with respect to such payments, and
``(4) the qualified health insurance credit advance amount
(as defined in section 7527(e)) received by such person with
respect to the individual described in paragraph (2).
The written statement required under the preceding sentence
shall be furnished on or before January 31 of the year
following the calendar year for which the return under
subsection (a) is required to be made.
``(e) Returns Which Would Be Required To Be Made by 2 or
More Persons.--Except to the extent provided in regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, in the case of any amount
received by any person on behalf of another person, only the
person first receiving such amount shall be required to make
the return under subsection (a).''.
(2) Assessable penalties.--
(A) Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) of such Code
(relating to definitions) is amended by redesignating clauses
(xi) through (xvii) as clauses (xii) through (xviii),
respectively, and by inserting after clause (x) the following
new clause:
``(xi) section 6050T (relating to returns relating to
payments for qualified health insurance),''.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) of such Code is
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of the next to last
subparagraph, by striking the period at the end of the last
subparagraph and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(BB) section 6050T(d) (relating to returns relating to
payments for qualified health insurance).''.
(3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6050S
the following new item:

``Sec. 6050T. Returns relating to payments for qualified health
insurance.''.

(c) Criminal Penalty for Fraud.--Subchapter B of chapter 75
of such Code (relating to other offenses) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 7276. PENALTIES FOR OFFENSES RELATING TO HEALTH
INSURANCE TAX CREDIT.

``Any person who knowingly misuses Department of the
Treasury names, symbols, titles, or initials to convey the
false impression of association with, or approval or
endorsement by, the Department of the Treasury of any
insurance products or group health coverage in connection
with the credit for health insurance costs under section 35
shall on conviction thereof be fined not more than $10,000,
or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 162(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Election to have subsection apply.--No deduction
shall be allowed under paragraph (1) for a taxable year
unless the taxpayer elects to have this subsection apply for
such year.''.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or
from section 35 of such Code''.
(3) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking the last item and inserting the
following new items:

``Sec. 35. Health insurance costs.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.

(4) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 75 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:

``Sec. 7276. Penalties for offenses relating to health insurance tax
credit.''.

(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
(2) Penalties.--The amendments made by subsections (c) and
(d)(4) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act.

SEC. 3. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF CREDIT TO ISSUERS OF QUALIFIED
HEALTH INSURANCE.

(a) In General.--Chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to miscellaneous provisions) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 7527. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT TO
ISSUERS OF QUALIFIED HEALTH INSURANCE.

``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an eligible individual,
the Secretary shall make payments to the health insurance
issuer of such individual's qualified health insurance equal
to such individual's qualified health insurance credit
advance amount with respect to such issuer.
``(b) Eligible Individual.--For purposes of this section,
the term `eligible individual' means any individual--
``(1) who purchases qualified health insurance (as defined
in section 35(c)), and
``(2) for whom a qualified health insurance credit
eligibility certificate is in effect.
``(c) Health Insurance Issuer.--For purposes of this
section, the term `health insurance issuer' has the meaning
given such term by section 9832(b)(2).
``(d) Qualified Health Insurance Credit Eligibility
Certificate.--For purposes of this section, a qualified
health insurance credit eligibility certificate is a
statement furnished by an individual to a qualified health
insurance issuer which--

[[Page S1904]]

``(1) certifies that the individual will be eligible to
receive the credit provided by section 35 for the taxable
year,
``(2) estimates the amount of such credit for such taxable
year, and
``(3) provides such other information as the Secretary may
require for purposes of this section.
``(e) Qualified Health Insurance Credit Advance Amount.--
For purposes of this section, the term `qualified health
insurance credit advance amount' means, with respect to any
qualified health insurance issuer of qualified health
insurance, an estimate of the amount of credit allowable
under section 35 to the individual for the taxable year which
is attributable to the insurance provided to the individual
by such issuer.
``(f) Required Documentation for Receipt of Payments of
Advance Amount.--No payment of a qualified health insurance
credit advance amount with respect to any eligible individual
may be made under subsection (a) unless the health insurance
issuer provides to the Secretary--
``(1) the qualified health insurance credit eligibility
certificate of such individual, and
``(2) the return relating to such individual under section
6050T.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
77 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:

``Sec. 7527. Advance payment of health insurance credit for purchasers
of qualified health insurance.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2001.
<bullet> Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues
today and be part of the first bipartisan, bicameral group to address
the growing number of individuals and families without health insurance
coverage in this country.
The problem has been made clear. America's uninsured population
continues to rise. Despite the fact that we are enjoying strong
economic times, the nation's uninsured population has grown to 44
million over the past decade. We know that the majority of the
uninsured--32 of the 44 million--earn an annual income of under
$50,000. We also know that the rising cost of health insurance is the
single most important reason for not purchasing health care coverage.
Many Americans simply cannot afford to buy health insurance.
The solutions are becoming clearer as well. A one-size fits all
approach to expand health coverage and access to health care does not
meet the various needs of the uninsured population. As a result, our
proposal will take a multi-pronged approach that meets the needs of the
uninsured and looks at innovative approaches to provide individuals
greater ability to purchase coverage. We will seek to build upon the
current employer-based system which continues to be the main source of
health care coverage for most Americans.
Our goal is to fill the coverage gaps that exist in the current
system. A central piece of our proposal is to provide a refundable tax
credit for low-income Americans who are not offered a contribution for
their insurance through their employer and do not receive coverage
through federal programs such as Medicaid or Medicare. The legislation
introduced today will help hard working Americans who cannot afford to
buy coverage on their own. For example, the part-time worker who is not
offered employer-sponsored health insurance will be offered a $1,000
tax credit to purchase health care coverage. The single mother with two
children earning less than $50,000 a year, will be offered a $2,000
credit to purchase health insurance.
The legislation introduced today is the first of many steps that we
will take to address the varying needs of the uninsured. Over the next
several months, we will also explore a variety of options to assist
individuals and their families in purchasing health coverage either
through existing employer plans, the individual market, or through
purchasing pools; seek ways to improve enrollment in existing federal
programs, where approximately 5 million adults and 8 million children
are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance
Program (S-CHIP) yet are not enrolled; and finally, as the Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Public Health, I will work closely with my
colleagues to explore ways to expand and sustain our safety net system
to improve access to critical primary care services to the uninsured
and medically underserved populations.
I especially wish to thank the American Academy of Family Physicians,
the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association,
the Americans for Tax Reform, the BlueCross BlueShield Association, the
Chamber of Commerce of the USA, the Citizens Against Government Waste,
the Galen Institute, the Healthcare Leadership Council, the Health
Insurance Association of America, the Hispanic Business Roundtable, the
National Center for Policy Analysis, the National Federation of
Independent Business, and the Small Business Survival Committee for
their support of this important legislation.<bullet>
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2321. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
tax credit for development costs of telecommunications facilities in
rural areas; to the Committee on Finance.

rural telecommunications modernization act of 2000

<bullet> Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act. This Act would create a tax
credit for companies that invest in providing broadband
telecommunications services available in rural areas. The convergence
of computing and communications has changed the way America interacts
and does business. Individuals, businesses, schools, libraries,
hospitals, and many others, reap the benefits of networked
communications more and more each year. However, where in the past
access to low bandwidth telephone facilities met our communications
needs, today many people and organizations need the ability to transmit
and receive large amounts of data quickly--as part of electronic
commerce, distance learning, telemedicine, and even for mere access to
many web sites.
In some areas of the country companies are building networks that
meet this broadband need as fast as they can. Technology companies are
fighting to roll out broadband facilities as quickly as they can in
urban and suburban areas. They are tearing up streets to instal fiber
optics, converting cable TV facilities to broadband telecom
applications, developing incredible new DSL technologies that convert
regular copper telephone wires into broadband powerhouses.
Other areas are not as fortunate. In rural areas access to broadband
communications is harder to come by. In fact, there are only a few
broadband providers outside big cities and suburban areas nationwide.
This is because in many cases rural areas are more expensive to serve.
Terrain is difficult. Populations are widely dispersed. Importantly,
many of our broadband technologies cannot serve people who live more
than eighteen thousand feet from a phone company's central office--
which is the case for most rural Americans.
The implications for the country if we allow this broadband disparity
to continue are alarming. Organizations in traditional robust
communications and computing regions, often located in prosperous urban
and suburban communities, will be able to reap the rewards of the so-
called ``New Economy.'' Organizations in other areas, often in rural
areas, including many areas in my State of West Virginia, will suffer
the consequences of being unable to take advantage of the astounding
power of broadband networked computing.
Just as companies that employ technological advances are decimating
their less technologically savvy competitors, businesses in
infrastructure-rich areas may soon decimate competitors in
infrastructure-poor areas. This is just as true for rural students and
workers trying to gain new skills who are competing against their non-
rural peers in the New Economy. The result of this digital divide could
be disastrous for rural Americans: job loss, tax revenue loss, brain
drain, and business failure concentrated in rural areas.
Denying rural Americans a chance to participate in the New Economy is
also bad for the national economy. Businesses will be forced to locate
their operations and hire their employees in urban locations that have
adequate broadband infrastructure, rather than in rural locations that
are otherwise more efficient due to the location of

[[Page S1905]]

their customers or suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper
production environments. Additionally, without adequate infrastructure,
the businesses and individuals in these communications infrastructure
poor areas are less likely to be integrated into the national
electronic marketplace. Their absence would put a damper on the growth
of the digital economy for everyone--not just for those in rural areas.
Therefore, we must do everything we can to ensure that broadband
communications are available to all areas of the country--rural as well
as urban. The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act addresses this
problem.
The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act would give companies
the incentive to build broadband facilities in rural areas by using a
very focused tax credit. It would offer any company that invests in
broadband facilities in rural areas a tax credit over the next three
years. This tax credit will help fight the growing disparity in
technology I just described.
The credit is only available for certain investments. First,
investments must be for ``broadband local access facilities.'' Second,
investments must support ``high-speed broadband telecommunications
services.'' And third, investments must serve only ``rural counties.''
The Rural Telecommunications Modernization Act is part of the
solution to the critically important digital divide problem. Rural
Americans deserve the chance to participate in the New Economy. Without
access to broadband services they will not have this chance. I hope
that the Members of this body will support this important bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2321

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 ``Rural Telecommunications
Modernization Act of 2000.

SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT
IN RURAL AREAS.

(a) In General.--Section 46(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to amount of investment credit) is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(4) the rural telecommunications facilities credit.''
(b) Amount of Credit.--Subpart E of part IV of subchapter A
of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to rules for computing investment credit) is amended by
inserting after section 47 the following:

``SEC. 47A. RURAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES CREDIT.

``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the rural
telecommunications facilities credit for any taxable year is
an amount equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified
broadband local access facilities expenditures for such
taxable year.
``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the applicable percentage in the case of qualified
broadband local access facilities expenditures in connection
with--
``(1) broadband telecommunications facilities, is 10
percent, and
``(2) enhanced broadband telecommunications facilities, is
15 percent.
``(c) Qualified broadband local access facilities
expenditure.--For purposes of this section, the term
`qualified broadband local access facilities expenditure'
means any expenditure--
``(1) chargeable to capital account--
``(A) for property for which depreciation is allowable
under section 168, and
``(B) incurred in connection with broadband
telecommunications facilities or enhanced broadband
telecommunications facilities serving rural subscribers, and
``(2) incurred during the period--
``(A) beginning with the taxpayer's (or any predecessor's)
first taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment
of this section, and
``(B) ending with the taxpayer's (or any predecessor's)
third taxable year beginning after such date.
``(d) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Broadband telecommunications facilities.--The term
`broadband telecommunications facilities' means broadband
local access facilities capable of--
``(A) transmitting voice, and
``(B) downloading data at a rate of 1.5 MBPS and uploading
data at a rate of .5 MBPS.
``(2) Enhanced broadband telecommunications facilities.--
The term `enhanced broadband telecommunications facilities'
means the broadband local access facilities capable of--
``(A) transmitting voice, and
``(B) downloading and uploading data at a rate of 10 MBPS.
``(3) Determination of broadband local access facilities.--
Broadband local access facilities--
``(A) begin at the switching point closest to the rural
subscriber, which is--
``(i) the subscriber side of the nearest switching facility
in the case of local exchange carriers,
``(ii) the subscriber side of the headend or the node in
the case of cable television operators, and
``(iii) the subscriber side of the transmission and
reception facilities in the case of a wireless or satellite
carrier,
``(B) end at the interface between the network and the
rural subscriber's location, and
``(C) do not include any switching facility.
``(4) Rural subscriber.--The term `rural subscriber' means
a subscriber who lives in area which--
``(A) is not within 10 miles of any incorporated or census
designated places containing more than 25,000 people, and
``(B) is not within a county or county equivalent which has
an overall population density of more than 500 people per
square mile of land.''
(c) Special Rule for Mutual or Cooperative Telephone
Companies.--Section 501(c)(12)(B) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt organizations) is
amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting
``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) which is not described in subparagraph (A), in an
amount which does not exceed in any year an amount equal to
the applicable percentage of the qualified broadband local
access facilities expenditures (as determined in section 47A)
of the mutual or cooperative telephone company for such
year.''
(d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 47 the following:

``Sec. 47A. Rural telecommunications facilities credit.''

(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to expenditures
incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Special rule.--The amendments made by subsection (c)
shall apply to amounts received after the date of the
enactment of this Act.<bullet>
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 2322. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to establish a
special subsistence allowance for certain members of the uniformed
services who are eligible to receive food stamp assistance, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

remove servicemembers from food stamps act of 2000

<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
remove thousands of our servicemembers from the food stamp rolls.
The Remove Servicemembers from Food Stamps Act of 2000 provides
junior enlisted servicemembers who are eligible for food stamps in the
pay grade E-1 through E-5 an additional allowance of $180 a month. A
not-yet-published Department of Defense report estimates that 6,300
servicemembers receive food stamps, while the General Accounting Office
and Congressional Research Service place this number at around 13,500.
Regardless of this disparity, the fact that just one servicemember is
on food stamps is a national disgrace. This bill will end the ``food
stamp Army'' once and for all.
This legislative proposal is estimated to cost only $6 million
annually. Interestingly, the Congressional Budget Office determined
that it would represent an overall savings to taxpayers since it would
save the Department of Agriculture more than $6 million by removing
servicemembers from the food stamp rolls for good.
Last year, this legislation was included in S. 4, the Soldiers',
Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Relief Act of 1999. Although the
Senate approved this legislation as part of S. 4, I was greatly
disappointed when food stamp relief was rejected by conferees from the
House of Representatives despite the strong support of Admiral Jay
Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, and General Jim Jones, the
Commandant of the Marine Corps. With over 13,500 military families on
food stamps, and possibly thousands more eligible for the program, I
cannot understand the Congress' refusal to rectify this problem in last
year's National Defense Authorization Act.
It is outrageous that Admirals and Generals received a 17 percent pay

[[Page S1906]]

raise last year while our enlisted families continue to line up for
free food and furniture. Last year, we poured hundreds of millions of
dollars into programs the military did not request, like the C-130J. We
spent $375 million as a down payment on a $1.5 billion amphibious
assault ship that the Navy did not want and that the Secretary of
Defense said diverts dollars from higher priority programs. We added
$5.1 million to build a gymnasium at the Naval Post-Graduate School and
$15 million to build a Reserve Center in Oregon--neither was in the
President's budget request or identified by the Joint Chiefs as a
priority item.
It is difficult to reconcile how Congress could waste $7.4 billion on
pork barrel spending in the defense budget, while we ignore the basic
needs of our military families. I have been open to all suggestions for
solutions to this problem and am willing to work toward a bipartisan
plan that would satisfy the administration, Congress, and the
Department of Defense. Sadly, politics, not military necessity, remains
the rule, not the exception.
It is unconscionable that the men and women who are willing to
sacrifice their lives for their country have to rely on food stamps to
make ends meet, and it is an abrogation of our responsibilities as
Senators to let this reality go on without some sort of legislative
remedy.
I will not stand by and watch as our military is permitted to erode
to the breaking point due to the President's lack of foresight and the
Congress' lack of compassion. These military men and women on food
stamps--our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines--are the very same
Americans that the President and Congress have sent into harm's way in
recent years in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and East Timor. They
deserve our continuing respect, our unwavering support, and a living
wage.
The legislation is supported by every enlisted association or
organization that specifically supports enlisted servicemember issues
in the Military Coalition and in the National Military/Veterans
Alliance. Associations include the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Non-
Commissioned Officers Association, the American Legion, the Retired
Enlisted Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services,
the Fleet Reserve Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the
U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, the Disabled
American Veterans, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of
the U.S., and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to act swiftly. It is a
step in the right direction toward improving the lives of our
servicemembers and their families who are struggling to feed their
families. There is no reason not to pass this bill immediately. We have
waited too long already. We must end the days of a ``food stamp Army''
once and for all. Our military personnel and their families deserve
better.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2322

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 ``Remove Servicemembers from
Food Stamps Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO
RECEIVE FOOD STAMP ASSISTANCE.

(a) Allowance.--(1) Chapter 7 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 402 the following
new section:

``Sec. 402a. Special subsistence allowance

``(a) Entitlement.--Upon the application of an eligible
member of a uniformed service described in subsection (b),
the Secretary concerned shall pay the member a special
subsistence allowance for each month for which the member is
eligible to receive food stamp assistance.
``(b) Covered Members.--An enlisted member referred to in
subsection (a) is an enlisted member in pay grade E-5 or
below.
``(c) Termination of Entitlement.--The entitlement of a
member to receive payment of a special subsistence allowance
terminates upon the occurrence of any of the following
events:
``(1) Termination of eligibility for food stamp assistance.
``(2) Payment of the special subsistence allowance for 12
consecutive months.
``(3) Promotion of the member to a higher grade.
``(4) Transfer of the member in a permanent change of
station.
``(d) Reestablished Entitlement.--(1) After a termination
of a member's entitlement to the special subsistence
allowance under subsection (c), the Secretary concerned shall
resume payment of the special subsistence allowance to the
member if the Secretary determines, upon further application
of the member, that the member is eligible to receive food
stamps.
``(2) Payments resumed under this subsection shall
terminate under subsection (c) upon the occurrence of an
event described in that subsection after the resumption of
the payments.
``(3) The number of times that payments are resumed under
this subsection is unlimited.
``(e) Documentation of Eligibility.--A member of the
uniformed services applying for the special subsistence
allowance under this section shall furnish the Secretary
concerned with such evidence of the member's eligibility for
food stamp assistance as the Secretary may require in
connection with the application.
``(f) Amount of Allowance.--The monthly amount of the
special subsistence allowance under this section is $180.
``(g) Relationship to Basic Allowance for Subsistence.--The
special subsistence allowance under this section is in
addition to the basic allowance for subsistence under section
402 of this title.
``(h) Food Stamp Assistance Defined.--In this section, the
term `food stamp assistance' means assistance under the Food
Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
``(i) Termination of Authority.--No special subsistence
allowance may be made under this section for any month
beginning after September 30, 2005.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
402 the following:

``402a. Special subsistence allowance.''.

(b) Effective Date.--Section 402a of title 37, United
States Code, shall take effect on the first day of the first
month that begins on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than March 1 of each year
after 2000, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the number of
members of the uniformed services who are eligible for
assistance under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq.).
(2) In preparing the report, the Comptroller General shall
consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
Transportation (with respect to the Coast Guard), the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (with respect to the
commissioned corps of the Public Health Service), and the
Secretary of Commerce (with respect to the commissioned
officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration), who shall provide the Comptroller General
with any information that the Comptroller General determines
necessary to prepare the report.
(3) No report is required under this subsection after March
1, 2005.<bullet>
______

By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Enzi,
Mr. Abraham, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Robb, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Gorton, Mr. Hutchinson Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Reed, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Lugar):
S. 2323. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
clarify the treatment of stock options under the act; read the first
time.

worker economic opportunity act

<bullet> Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Worker Economic Opportunity Act. Senator Dodd and I have worked closely
with Senators Jeffords and Enzi, as well as Senators Abraham, Bennett,
Lieberman, and others to develop this important bill. This important
bipartisan bill will ensure that American workers can receive lucrative
stock options from their employers--once considered the exclusive perk
of corporate executives.
In recent years our country's innovative new workplaces and creative
employers have offered new financial opportunities--such as stock
options--for hourly employees. The Department of Labor recently issued
an interpretation of the decades-old labor and employment laws that
could keep normal employees from reaping the benefits of these perks.
When I realized this, I decided we needed to fix this problem--it would
have been a travesty for us to let old laws steal this chance for the
average employee to share in his or her company's economic growth.
This law simply says: it makes no difference if you work in the
corporate boardroom or on the factory floor--everyone should be able to
share in the success of the company.

[[Page S1907]]

Our bill changes the outdated laws so they don't stand in the way of
economic opportunity for American workers. In sum, the bill would amend
the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure that employer-provided stock
option programs are allowed just like employee bonuses already are.
Also, this legislation includes a broad ``safe harbor'' that specifies
that employers have no liability because of any stock options or
similar programs that they have given to employees in the past. The
bill I am introducing today is what I hope will be the first of many
common-sense efforts to drag old labor and employment laws into the new
millennium.
I am very pleased that Secretary Herman and the Department of Labor
have worked with us on this legislation. The Worker Economic
Opportunity Act is also supported by a broad range of high tech and
business groups who have joined together to form the Coalition to
Promote Employee Stock Ownership. This group has been of great
assistance throughout the development of this bill.
An identical companion bill to the Worker Economic Opportunity Act is
being introduced in the House today. As a result, I am optimistic that
we can work to ensure that this much-needed fix to the FLSA becomes law
in the near future.<bullet>
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator
McConnell in introducing the Worker Economic Opportunity Act. This
common sense bill will allow companies to continue to offer stock
option programs to their hourly employees without violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act with respect to overtime. We are joined today by
Senators Jeffords, Enzi, Robb, Murray, Lieberman, Bingaman, Reed,
Kerry, Abraham, Bennett, Gorton, Hutchinson, and Warner.
Sotck options, stock appreciation rights, and employee stock purchase
programs are tools used by some companies to give employees a stake in
a company's success and to retain employees in a tight labor market.
These programs are used by well-known companies such as Xerox, GTE, and
PepsiCo. as well as hi-tech startups. In more and more situations, non-
exempt and exempt employees are able to participate. For example, it
has been GTE's practice to give stock options to all 110,000 employees,
of which 53,000 are non-exempt. Xerox corporation employs approximately
52,000 employees in the United States, and offers stock options to all
employees who have completed one year of service. It employs 93,000
people worldwide and 57 percent of them are non-exempt.
Clearly, the trend in our economy is that more and more companies are
providing this type of compensation package. Not surprisingly, then, my
office was beset with letters and phone calls recently concerning a
1999 Department of Labor advisory letter regarding one company's
proposed stock option plan for non-exempt employees. The opinion
letter, which does not carry the weight of law, states that the value
of the options would have to be included in the non-exempt workers base
wages when calculating their overtime rates. The Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) exempts some employee benefits from overtime calculations
including health insurance, thrift savings plans, and discretionary
bonuses. When providing its opinion letter, the Department of Labor
determined that stock option plans did not fall within any of the
current exemptions. While the Department did point out that their
opinion was based on only one company's proposed plan, it became clear
that legislation was needed to exempt these programs, lest businesses
begin to exclude non-exempt employees from receiving stock options. I
commend the Department for calling for a legislative fix and working
closely with us to craft this bipartisan bill.
Our legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to exclude
from the regular rate stock options, stock appreciation rights or
bonafide stock purchase programs that meet certain vesting, disclosure,
and determination requirements. A safe harbor would be in effect to
protect companies that have already established stock option programs
for non-exempt workers, including those programs provided under a
collective bargaining agreement or requiring shareholder approval.
Just several years ago, stock option plans were only offered
corporate CEO's and other very senior executives. Today's flexible
benefit packages give that same opportunity throughout the corporate
structure. I don't believe that non-exempt employees who form the
backbone of most businesses should be excluded from this opportunity.
They deserve the right to share in the prosperity of the new economy.
Clearly, stock option programs have risk attached, so we wanted to be
very clear that our legislation requires that the terms and conditions
of any program are communicated to employees and that the exercise of
any grants is voluntary. Employees need to make informed choices.
I am pleased that this has been a bipartisan effort, and also one
where we have worked very constructively with the Administration. I
hope we can move it quickly for the benefit of all working families.
<bullet> Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am delighted to be here today
to introduce the Worker Economic Opportunity Act. Having worked with
colleagues from both sides of the aisle and the Department of Labor, I
am extremely proud of this collaborative effort which has resulted in
this legislation which will encourage employers to provide equity
ownership opportunities to their hourly employees.
In the last 10 years, we have witnessed tremendous change in the
structure of our Nation's economy in large part due to the birth of the
internet and e-commerce. The vitality of our economy is a tribute to
the creative and entrepreneurial genius of thousands of individual
business people and the indispensable contribution of the American
workforce.
As legislators during this exciting time, we are challenged to
maintain an environment that will foster the continued growth of our
economy. We must work to ensure that our laws are in sync with the
changing environment. However, many of the laws and policies governing
our workplace have fallen out of sync with the information age and
there has been particular resistance to changing our labor laws. As
Chairman of the Senate Committee with jurisdiction over workplace
issues, I believe it is time to examine and modify these laws to meet
the rapidly involving needs of the American workforce.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for example, was enacted in the
late 1930s, to establish basic standards for wages and overtime pay.
While the principles behind the FLSA have not changed, its rigid
provisions make it difficult for employers to accommodate the needs of
today's workforce. Most recently, we discovered that the FLSA actually
operates to deter employers from offering stock option programs to
hourly employees.
While stock option programs are most prevalent in the high tech
industry, increasingly employers across the whole spectrum of American
industry have begun to offer stock option programs to all of their
employees. Broad-based stock option programs prove valuable to both
employers and employees. For employers, stock options programs have
become a key tool for employee recruitment, motivation and retention.
Employees seek out companies offering these programs because they
enable workers to become owners and reap the benefits of their
company's growth.
When I heard about the FLSA's application to stock options, I became
very concerned about its impact on our workforce. I was pleased to
discover that Senators' McConnell, Dodd, and Enzi shared similar
concerns and that the Department of Labor also recognized that we had a
problem on our hands that would require a legislative solution.
Together we have crafted the Worker Economic Opportunity Act which will
create a new exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act for stock
options, stock appreciation rights and employee stock purchase
plans.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of the
introduction today of the Worker Economic Opportunity Act, a bipartisan
bill to exclude stock options and stock option profits from overtime
pay calculations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I want to
acknowledge and commend my colleagues Senators McConnell, Dodd, and
Jeffords for their hard work on this issue.

[[Page S1908]]

Earlier this year, the Department of Labor advised employers that
they would be required to include stock options in overtime
calculations. The advisory also prescribed an extremely complicated
method of calculation that created a virtual administrative
impossibility for employers. We received overwhelmingly negative
feedback that this advisory would result in the end of stock options
for hourly employees and create a lose-lose situation for employees and
employers alike. The legislation we introduce today ensures that
companies can continue to give stock options to hourly employees so
that these employees--and not just executives--can share in this
country's economic boom. And employers will be able to continue to use
stock options as a valuable tool for recruiting and retaining employees
in a competitive labor market.
This bipartisan legislation also represents an important first step
towards reforming outdated labor statutes that no longer meet the needs
of today's workforce. Most of the major labor statutes were drafted
between 30 and 60 years ago and many of their heavy-handed restrictions
are now more harmful than helpful to employees in the modern workplace.
We need to think about how to encourage--not discourage--employers'
development of new and creative measures to benefit employees, such as
stock option programs and telecommuting arrangements. Our legislation
will provide just such encouragement and ensure that stock option
programs do not fall prey to obsolete legislative prohibitions.
Finally, I am particularly proud that both Democrats and the
Department of Labor have worked with us on this bill. As chairman of
the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee, I firmly believe that
cooperation between lawmakers and agencies is the best way to develop
practical solutions that benefit both employees and businesses. I
sincerely hope that we can continue to work together on similar
measures in the future.<bullet>
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2324. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code,
to require ballistics testing of all firearms manufactured and all
firearms in custody of Federal agencies, and to add ballistics testing
to existing firearms enforcement strategies; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

BALLISTICS, LAW ASSISTANCE, SAFETY TECHNOLOGY ACT

<bullet> Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague
Senator Feinstein to introduce ``BLAST''--the Ballistics, Law
Assistance, and Safety Technology Act. The bill offers two
complementary approaches to combating gun violence. The first supplies
our Nation's police with a new technology to assist them in solving
crimes. The second expands ``Project Exile'' to 50 cities, giving
federal prosecutors the resources they need to put more felons behind
bars. Let me explain how our measure is crucial to the fight against
crime.
Reducing crime requires a multifaceted approach. While we need
tougher controls to keep guns away from kids in this country--including
mandating that child safety locks be sold with every new handgun--all
of us also recognize that the battle against senseless violence
includes prosecuting all criminals to the letter of the law.
Mr. President, just as every person has a unique fingerprint, each
gun leaves unique markings on discharged bullets and shell casings.
Over the past decade, new technology has allowed for the comparison of
those ``gun prints'' with bullets found at crime scenes. By keeping a
computerized image of each new gun's fingerprint, police can compare
the microscopic differences in markings left by each gun until they
find a match. Once a match is found, law enforcement can begin tracing
that weapon from its original sale to the person who used it to commit
the crime.
Indeed, ballistics technology, though nascent, is already helping to
solve crimes. For example, in June 1997, an Oakland man was shot and
killed as he used a public telephone on a street corner. Without any
leads or physical evidence other than a bullet casing left by the
discharged weapon, police were initially stymied in their search for
the killer.
A year passed without any progress in the investigation until police
made an ordinary arrest of two men for the unlawful possession of a
firearm. When the officers test-fired the confiscated gun and ran the
image through their ballistics database, they found a match within
seconds. The seized gun was the same gun that fired the deadly bullet
in the unsolved case the previous year. Police confronted the two men
with this evidence, and quickly received a confession to the murder.
In another case, police only found 9 millimeter cartridge casings at
the scene of a brutal homicide in Milwaukee--there were no other clues.
But four months later, when a teenage male was arrested on an unrelated
charge, he was found to be in possession of that firearm. Ballistics
linked the two cases. Prosecutors successfully prosecuted three adult
suspects for the homicide and convicted the teen in juvenile court.
Mr. President, since the early 1990's, more than 250 crime labs and
law enforcement agencies in over 40 states have been operating
independent ballistics systems maintained by either the ATF or the FBI.
Together, ATF's Integrated Ballistics Identification System (``IBIS'')
and the FBI's DRUGFIRE system have been responsible for linking 5,700
guns to two or more crimes where corroborating evidence was otherwise
lacking.
My own state of Wisconsin employs the DRUGFIRE system for ballistics
testing and has already used it to solve crime and provide
authenticating evidence for ongoing criminal investigations. In 1998,
the Milwaukee police department alone analyzed almost 600 firearms and
over 3200 fired cartridges. Even though Wisconsin's DRUGFIRE has a
limited number of guns in its database, ballistics testing helped solve
seven homicides, 100 cases where the reckless use of a weapon
endangered public safety, and numerous other gun crimes.
These statistics are heartening, but they also illustrate the
untapped potential of ballistics as a law enforcement weapon. Simply
put, ballistics testing is only as good as the number of images in the
database. Unfortunately, not enough guns are test fired before they are
sold, not enough communities have access to ballistics databases, and
not enough information is shared between law enforcement agencies of
different jurisdictions. Ironically, even the two primary agencies
responsible for investigating gun crimes--the ATF and the FBI--have
created ballistics systems that cannot read each others data. Sadly,
this significant law enforcement tool is severely underutilized.
But that need not be the case. Title I of BLAST makes ballistics a
centerpiece of our anti-crime strategy by requiring federal firearms
manufacturers and importers to test fire all new firearms and make the
ballistics images available to federal law enforcement; requiring
federal law enforcement officials to test fire all firearms in their
custody; and providing financial support to communities that include
ballistics testing as a critical part of their comprehensive anti-crime
strategy, building on the model used by ATF in the Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative.

The burden on manufacturers is minimal--we authorize funds to
underwrite the cost of testing--and the assistance to law enforcement
is considerable. And don't take my word for it, ask the gun
manufacturers and the police. Listen to what Paul Januzzo, the vice-
president of the gun manufacturer Glock, said last month in reference
to ballistics testing, ``our mantra has been that the issue is crime
control, not gun control . . . it would be two-faced of us not to want
this.'' In their agreement with HUD, Smith & Wesson agreed to perform
ballistics testing on all new handguns. And Ben Wilson, the chief of
the firearms section at ATF, emphasized the importance of ballistics
testing as a investigative device, ``This [ballistics] allows you
literally to find a needle in a haystack.''
Our approach is bipartisan as well. The Republican governor of New
York, George Pataki, prominently included a similar ballistics measure
in his recently introduced anti-crime package. He clearly recognizes,
as we do, that the more we can empower law enforcement, the more
effectively we can put hard core criminals where they belong--behind
bars.

[[Page S1909]]

To be sure, we are sensitive to the notion that law abiding hunters
and sportsmen need to be protected from any misuse of the ballistics
database by government. The BLAST bill explicitly prohibits ballistics
information from being used for any purpose unless it is necessary for
the investigation of a gun crime.
Of course, to successfully combat crime, you also need to enhance the
arsenal of law enforcement. That is why Title II of BLAST expands the
successful ``Project Exile'' program. By authorizing $20 million over
four years, BLAST would fund gun prosecutors in 50 cities--prosecutors,
who will work in conjunction with state and local authorities, devoted
solely to the aggressive enforcement of the federal gun laws.
This program already enjoys widespread support--from the industry to
leaders on both sides of the political aisle to the National Rifle
Association, which has pointed to Project Exile as a model for fighting
gun crime. Our hope is to expand the success of EXILE across the
country and provide the resources to every city interested in
aggressively pursuing gun crimes. Felons will know that if they commit
a crime with a gun they will pay the price.
Mr. President, the BLAST bill will enhance a revolutionary new
technology that helps solve crime while, at the same time, recognizing
that new crime solving instruments are worthless unless prosecutors are
in place to punish violent offenders to the fullest extent of the law.
BLAST is a worthwhile piece of crime control legislation. I hope that
the Senate will quickly move to pass it.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2324

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 ``Ballistics, Law Assistance,
and Safety Technology Act'' (``BLAST'').

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to increase public safety by assisting law enforcement
in solving more gun-related crimes and offering prosecutors
evidence to link felons to gun crimes through ballistics
technology;
(2) to provide for ballistics testing of all new firearms
for sale to assist in the identification of firearms used in
crimes;
(3) to require ballistics testing of all firearms in
custody of Federal agencies to assist in the identification
of firearms used in crimes;
(4) to add ballistics testing to existing firearms
enforcement programs; and
(5) to provide for targeted enforcement of Federal firearms
laws.

TITLE I--BLAST

SEC. 101. DEFINITION OF BALLISTICS.

Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(35) Ballistics.--The term `ballistics' means a
comparative analysis of fired bullets and cartridge casings
to identify the firearm from which bullets were discharged,
through identification of the unique characteristics that
each firearm imprints on bullets and cartridge casings.''.

SEC. 102. TEST FIRING AND AUTOMATED STORAGE OF BALLISTICS
RECORDS.

(a) Amendment.--Section 923 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(m)(1) In addition to the other licensing requirements
under this section, a licensed manufacturer or licensed
importer shall--
``(A) test fire firearms manufactured or imported by such
licensees as specified by the Secretary by regulation;
``(B) prepare ballistics images of the fired bullet and
cartridge casings from the test fire;
``(C) make the records available to the Secretary for entry
in a computerized database; and
``(D) store the fired bullet and cartridge casings in such
a manner and for such a period as specified by the Secretary
by regulation.
``(2) Nothing in this subsection creates a cause of action
against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for
any civil liability except for imposition of a civil penalty
under this section.
``(3)(A) The Attorney General and the Secretary shall
assist firearm manufacturers and importers in complying with
paragraph (1) through--
``(i) the acquisition, disposition, and upgrades of
ballistics equipment and bullet recovery equipment to be
placed at or near the sites of licensed manufacturers and
importers;
``(ii) the hiring or designation of personnel necessary to
develop and maintain a database of ballistics images of fired
bullets and cartridge casings, research and evaluation;
``(iii) providing education about the role of ballistics as
part of a comprehensive firearm crime reduction strategy;
``(iv) providing for the coordination among Federal, State,
and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies and the
firearm industry to curb firearm-related crime and illegal
firearm trafficking; and
``(v) any other steps necessary to make ballistics testing
effective.
``(B) The Attorney General and the Secretary shall--
``(i) establish a computer system through which State and
local law enforcement agencies can promptly access ballistics
records stored under this subsection, as soon as such a
capability is available; and
``(ii) encourage training for all ballistics examiners.
``(4) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this subsection and annually thereafter, the Attorney General
and the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives a report regarding the impact of
this section, including--
``(A) the number of Federal and State criminal
investigations, arrests, indictments, and prosecutions of all
cases in which access to ballistics records provided under
this section served as a valuable investigative tool;
``(B) the extent to which ballistics records are accessible
across jurisdictions; and
``(C) a statistical evaluation of the test programs
conducted pursuant to section 6 of the Ballistics, Law
Assistance, and State Technology Act.
``(5) There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004, $20,000,000 to carry
out this subsection, including--
``(A) installation of ballistics equipment and bullet
recovery equipment;
``(B) establishment of sites for ballistics testing;
``(C) salaries and expenses of necessary personnel; and
``(D) research and evaluation.
``(6) The Secretary and the Attorney General shall conduct
mandatory ballistics testing of all firearms obtained or in
the possession of their respective agencies.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendment made by subsection (a) take effect on the date on
which the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Board of the National Integrated
Ballistics Information Network, certify that the ballistics
systems used by the Department of Justice and the Department
of the Treasury are sufficiently interoperable to make
mandatory ballistics testing of new firearms possible.
(2) Effective on date of enactment.--Section 923(m)(6) of
title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 103. PRIVACY RIGHTS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Ballistics information of individual guns in any form or
database established by this Act may not be used for
prosecutorial purposes unless law enforcement officials have
a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that
ballistics information would assist in the investigation of
that crime.

SEC. 104. DEMONSTRATION FIREARM CRIME REDUCTION STRATEGY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Attorney General shall establish in the jurisdictions
selected under subsection (c), a comprehensive firearm crime
reduction strategy that meets the requirements of subsection
(b).
(b) Program Elements.--Each program established under
subsection (a) shall, for the jurisdiction concerned--
(1) provide for ballistics testing, in accordance with
criteria set forth by the National Integrated Ballistics
Information Network, of all firearms recovered during
criminal investigations, in order to--
(A) identify the types and origins of the firearms;
(B) identify suspects; and
(C) link multiple crimes involving the same firearm;
(2) require that all identifying information relating to
firearms recovered during criminal investigations be promptly
submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury, in order to
identify the types and origins of the firearms and to
identify illegal firearms traffickers;
(3) provide for coordination among Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officials, firearm examiners,
technicians, laboratory personnel, investigators, and
prosecutors in the tracing and ballistics testing of firearms
and the investigation and prosecution of firearms-related
crimes including illegal firearms trafficking; and
(4) require analysis of firearm tracing and ballistics data
in order to establish trends in firearm-related crime and
firearm trafficking.
(c) Participating Jurisdictions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury and the
Attorney General shall select not fewer than 10 jurisdictions
for participation in the program under this section.
(2) Considerations.--In selecting jurisdictions under this
subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney
General shall give priority to jurisdictions that--

[[Page S1910]]

(A) participate in comprehensive firearm law enforcement
strategies, including programs such as the Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative (known as ``YCGII''), Project
Achilles, Project Disarm, Project Triggerlock, Project Exile,
and Project Surefire, and Operation Ceasefire;
(B) draft a plan to share ballistics records with nearby
jurisdictions that require ballistics testing of firearms
recovered during criminal investigations; and
(C) pledge to match Federal funds for the expansion of
ballistics testing on a one-on-one basis.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2001 through
2004, $20,000,000 to carry out this section, including--
(1) installation of ballistics equipment; and
(2) salaries and expenses for personnel (including
personnel from the Department of Justice and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms).

TITLE II--EXILE

SEC. 201. TARGETED ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.

(a) Designation.--The Attorney General and the Secretary of
the Treasury, after consultation with appropriate State and
local officials, shall designate not less than 50 local
jurisdictions in which to enforce aggressively Federal laws
designed to prevent the possession by criminals of firearms
(as defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United States
Code).
(b) Assistance.--In order to provide assistance for the
enforcement of Federal laws designed to prevent the
possession by criminals of firearms, the Attorney General and
the Secretary of the Treasury may--
(1) direct the detailing of Federal personnel, including
Assistant United States Attorneys and agents and
investigators of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms, to designated jurisdictions, subject to the
approval of the head of that department or agency that
employs such personnel;
(2) coordinate activities with State and local officials,
including facilitation of training of State and local law
enforcement officers and prosecutors in designated
jurisdictions to work with Federal prosecutors, agents, and
investigators to identify appropriate cases for enforcement
of Federal laws designed to prevent the possession by
criminals of firearms;
(3) help coordinate, in conjunction with local officials,
local businesses, and community leaders, public outreach in
designated jurisdictions regarding penalties associated with
violation of Federal laws designed to prevent the possession
by criminals of firearms.
(c) Criteria for Designation.--In designating local
jurisdictions under this section, the Attorney General and
Secretary of the Treasury shall consider--
(1) the extent to which there is a high rate of recidivism
among armed felons in the jurisdiction;
(2) the extent to which there is a high rate of violent
crime in the jurisdiction;
(3) the extent to which State and local law enforcement
agencies have committed resources to respond to the illegal
possession of firearms in the jurisdiction, as an indication
of their determination to respond aggressively to the
problem;
(4) the extent to which a significant increase in the
allocation of Federal resources is necessary to respond
adequately to the illegal possession of firearms in the
jurisdiction; and
(5) any other criteria as the Attorney General and
Secretary of the Treasury consider to be appropriate.
(d) Priority.--In addition to the criteria set forth in
subsection (c), in considering which local jurisdictions to
designate under this section, the Attorney General and the
Secretary of the Treasury shall give priority to
jurisdictions that have--
(1) demonstrated a commitment to enforcement of Federal
firearms laws through participation in initiatives like the
Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, Project Disarm, and
Operation Ceasefire;
(2) identified a large number of convicted felons involved
in firearms trafficking to individuals under age 25; and
(3) agreed to require that all identifying information
relating to firearms recovered during criminal investigations
be promptly submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury to
identify the types and origins of such firearms and to
identify illegal firearms traffickers.
(e) Reports and Evaluation.--
(1) Annual report.--The Attorney General and the Secretary
of the Treasury shall annually submit to the Chairmen and
Ranking Members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Senate a report, which shall
include information relating to--
(A) the number of arrests by Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officials involving illegal possession of
firearms by criminals in each designated city;
(B) the number of individuals prosecuted for illegal
firearms possession by criminals in Federal, State, and local
court in each designated city, the number of convictions, and
a breakdown of sentences imposed; and
(C) a description of the public outreach initiatives being
implemented in designated jurisdictions.
(2) Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General and the Secretary
of the Treasury shall submit to the Chairmen and Ranking
Members of the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report concerning the
effectiveness of the designation of jurisdictions under this
section, including an analysis of whether crime within the
jurisdiction has been reduced or displaced to nearby
jurisdictions, along with any recommendations for related
legislation.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.<bullet>
______

By Mr. TORRICELLI:
S. 2325. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure
equity in the provision of transportation by limousine services; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

contracted automobile regulatory relief act of 2000 (carr)

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will eliminate burdensome and unnecessary regulations which are
devastating the nation's limousine companies, 80 percent of which are
small business owners.
Federal Highway Administration regulations grant limo operators the
right to cross states lines ``without interference''. Yet local
entities across the U.S. have taken it upon themselves to establish
unnecessary bureaucracies for the purpose of placing excessive and
arbitrary requirements upon limo operators that enter their
jurisdictions.
Current law already requires limo operators to be certified and
registered at three different stages: the U.S. Department of
Transportation; the state in which they principally operate; and the
locality in which the business is located. Therefore, company owners,
drivers, and vehicles must already comply with a myriad of safety and
financial requirements that includes carrying at least $1.5 million in
liability insurance. Public safety is clearly being upheld.
Yet, after satisfying these three stages of compliance, limo
operators often find that there is a fourth, fifth, sixth and sometimes
even more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to simply conduct their
business. This happens when a locality sets up a Local Taxi and
Limousine Commission to place certification requirements not only on
companies located in their jurisdiction, but on any other limo that
enters their locality to pick up or drop off a customer. These
additional licenses can cost up to several hundred dollars annually--
and that's just to enter one jurisdiction.
The purpose of the CARR ACT is simple. It says that if a limo
operator has satisfied federal, state, and local requirements, no other
state or entity has the authority to establish additional requirements.
The bill will not lower the quality of service which the public expects
from the limousine industry nor does it compromise public safety. In
fact, my legislation does not affect any safety regulations or
financial requirements on interstate operations required by the U.S.
DOT nor does it affect the power of states to regulate safety or
financial responsibility as they may do under current law.
The same protections were granted to the trucking industry in 1995,
to the armor car industry in 1997, and to the chartered bus industry
under TEA-21. The time for these protections to be extended to the
limousine industry is long overdue. No small business should be faced
with the unfair and excessive bureaucracy faced by the nation's 9,000
limousine operators.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2325

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 ``Contracted Automobile
Regulatory Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULATION OF INTERSTATE AND CERTAIN INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.

Section 14501(a) of title 49, United States Code, 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 a semicolon; and

[[Page S1911]]

(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) prohibiting, restricting, licensing, permitting, or
regulating the operation of a motor vehicle that is providing
limousine service on an interstate basis, except in the case
of the State or political subdivision in which the limousine
operator maintains its principal place of business; or
``(E) requiring that a person, that has secured any
mandatory State license, permit, certificate, or authority to
operate a limousine service on an intrastate basis between or
among political subdivisions within the State, obtain, in
order to conduct limousine service between or among political
subdivisions of the State, a license, permit, certificate, or
other form of authority from any political subdivision of the
State other than the political subdivision in which the
limousine operator maintains its principal place of
business.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Limousine service.--The term `limousine service'
means a prearranged ground transportation service in a motor
vehicle (other than a motor vehicle providing taxicab
service), the seating capacity of which does not exceed 15
passengers (including the driver), that--
``(i) is provided on a dedicated, nonscheduled, charter
basis;
``(ii) is not conducted on a regular route; and
``(iii) does not entail shuttle service.
``(B) Shuttle service.--The term `shuttle service' means
the simultaneous provision of a nondedicated transportation
service to more than 1 paying customer in a case in which the
service provider, rather than the customer, reserves the
power to determine the pickup or destination point.''.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
S. 2326. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to strengthen
and clarify prohibitions on electronic eavesdropping, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the wireless eavesdropping protection act of 2000

<bullet> Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Wireless
Eavesdropping Protection Act. This bill will enhance the privacy rights
of wireless subscribers by strengthening the laws that prohibit
eavesdropping wireless communications. Since the early days of wireless
communications, Congress has paid particular attention to the privacy
rights of wireless subscribers. Unfortunately, despite our best
efforts, electronic eavesdroppers have been able to find loopholes in
the law. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from
Montana, Senator Burns.
Using the loopholes, electronic eavesdroppers have been able to
develop a ``gray market'' for modified and modifiable wireless
scanners. Some of these individuals even advertise in magazines and on
Internet websites that their products can be altered easily to pick up
cellular communications. The information and equipment necessary to
make these modifications are also widely advertised, sometimes with
blatant offers to unblock the cellular frequencies after the equipment
is purchased.
The Wireless Eavesdropping Protection Act attacks these problems on
several fronts. First, it would expand the definition of the
frequencies that may not be scanned to include digital Personal
Communications Service (PCS) frequencies as well as cellular ones. The
legislation recognizes that some frequencies are shared between
commercial mobile services and public safety users, and that the use of
scanners to monitor public safety communications may assist in saving
lives. As to those frequencies, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) may adopt such regulations as may be necessary to enhance
privacy.
Second, the bill would clarify that it is just as illegal to modify
scanners for the purpose of eavesdropping as it is to manufacture or
import them for this purpose, and it would direct the FCC to modify its
rules to reflect this change. The bill also would amend current law to
prohibit either the intentional interception or the intentional
divulgence of wireless communications, so that either action on its own
would be prohibited. Finally, the bill would require the FCC to
investigate and take action on wireless privacy violations, regardless
of any other investigative or enforcement action by any other federal
agency. This provision would help ensure that these newly strengthened
privacy protections are full enforced in the future.
The millions of Americans who use wireless communications deserve to
have their privacy protected. They should be able to enjoy the same
privacy protection as landline phone users. The Wireless Eavesdropping
Protection Act will help provide those protections, and I urge my
colleagues to join Senator Burns and me in supporting this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2326

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 ``Wireless Eavesdropping
Protection Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. COMMERCE IN ELECTRONIC EAVESDROPPING DEVICES.

(a) Prohibition on Modification.--Section 302(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 302a(b)) is amended by
inserting before the period at the end thereof the following:
``, or modify any such device, equipment, or system in any
manner that causes such device, equipment, or system to fail
to comply with such regulations''.
(b) Prohibition on Commerce in Scanning Receivers.--Section
302(d) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 302a(d)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Equipment Authorization Regulations.--
``(1) Privacy protections required.--The Commission shall
prescribe regulations, and review and revise such regulations
as necessary in response to subsequent changes in technology
or behavior, denying equipment authorization (under part 15
of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any other part
of that title) for any scanning receiver that is capable of--
``(A) receiving transmissions in the frequencies that are
allocated to the domestic cellular radio telecommunications
service or the personal communications service;
``(B) readily being altered to receive transmissions in
such frequencies;
``(C) being equipped with decoders that--
``(i) convert digital domestic cellular radio
telecommunications service, personal communications service,
or protected specialized mobile radio service transmissions
to analog voice audio; or
``(ii) convert protected paging service transmissions to
alphanumeric text; or
``(D) being equipped with devices that otherwise decode
encrypted radio transmissions for the purposes of
unauthorized interception.
``(2) Privacy protections for shared frequencies.--The
Commission shall, with respect to scanning receivers capable
of receiving transmissions in frequencies that are used by
commercial mobile services and that are shared by public
safety users, examine methods, and may prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary, to enhance the privacy of
users of such frequencies.
``(3) Tampering prevention.--In prescribing regulations
pursuant to paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider
defining `capable of readily being altered' to require
scanning receivers to be manufactured in a manner that
effectively precludes alteration of equipment features and
functions as necessary to prevent commerce in devices that
may be used unlawfully to intercept or divulge radio
communication.
``(4) Warning labels.--In prescribing regulations under
paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider requiring labels
on scanning receivers warning of the prohibitions in Federal
law on intentionally intercepting or divulging radio
communications.
``(5) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
`protected' means secured by an electronic method that is not
published or disclosed except to authorized users, as further
defined by Commission regulation.''.
(c) Implementing Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal
Communications Commission shall prescribe amendments to its
regulations for the purposes of implementing the amendments
made by this section.

SEC. 3. UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION OR PUBLICATION OF
COMMUNICATIONS.

Section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
605) is amended--
(1) in the heading of such section, by inserting
``interception or'' after ``unauthorized'';
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, United
States Code, no person'' and inserting ``No person'';
(3) in the second sentence of subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``intentionally'' before ``intercept'';
and
(B) by striking ``communication and divulge'' and inserting
``communication, and no person having intercepted such a
communication shall intentionally divulge'';
(4) in the fourth sentence of subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``intercepted, shall''; and
(B) by striking ``thereof) or'' and inserting ``thereof);
or (B)'';
(5) by striking the last sentence of subsection (a) and
inserting the following: ``Nothing in this subsection
prohibits an

[[Page S1912]]

interception or disclosure of a communication as authorized
by chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code.''; and
(6) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``fined not more than $2,000 or''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or fined under title 18, United States
Code,'' after ``6 months,'';
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``any violation'' and
inserting ``any receipt, interception, divulgence,
publication, or utilization of any communication in
violation'';
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``any other activity
prohibited by subsection (a)'' and inserting ``any receipt,
interception, divulgence, publication, or utilization of any
communication in violation of subsection (a)''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Notwithstanding any other investigative or
enforcement activities of any other Federal agency, the
Commission shall investigate alleged violations of this
section and may proceed to initiate action under section 503
to impose forfeiture penalties with respect to such violation
upon conclusion of the Commission's investigation.''.<bullet>
______

By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Akaka, Mrs.
Boxer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr.
Schumer):
S. 2327. A bill to establish a Commission on Ocean Policy, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

oceans act of 2000

<bullet> Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Oceans Act of 2000, a bill calling for a plan of action for the twenty-
first century to explore, protect, and use our oceans and coasts
through the coming millennium. I am pleased to be joined in this
endeavor by my colleagues, Senators Stevens, Snowe, Kerry, Breaux,
Inouye, Cleland, Wyden, Akaka, Boxer, Murray, Lautenberg, Feinstein,
Lieberman, Moynihan, Reed, Sarbanes, and Schumer.
This is not the first time I have come before you to advocate
legislation to ensure our national ocean policy is coordinated,
effective, and sustainable for future generations. In 1997, I
introduced an Oceans Act to create both an independent ocean commission
and a federal interagency ocean council. While the Senate passed this
bill unanimously, it was not enacted before the end of the 105th
Congress. We continued the work we started in 1997 by introducing the
Senate-passed bill as S. 959, cosponsored by 23 Senators from both
sides of the aisle, in May of last year. I now introduce the Oceans Act
of 2000, a new bill that reflects the lessons learned among state and
federal policymakers, ocean-related industries, and public interest
groups who worked together during and after the 1998 Year of the Ocean.
What we heard loud and clear from these groups was the need for a
balanced, high-level national commission to determine whether the
United States is managing its oceans and coasts wisely, and how we can
improve or refocus our efforts. Thus, the Oceans Act of 2000 focuses
exclusively on the appointment of an independent national Ocean
Commission to recommend ways to ensure our nation's ocean policy is
coordinated, effective, and sustainable for future generations. I
believe this is both improved and streamlined legislation that will
enjoy wide support from industry, conservation groups, and States.
Already we have received letters of support from a cross-section of
these interests, all of whom believe we cannot wait any longer to enact
this important legislation.
Mr. President, it is critical that we enact the Oceans Act of 2000
this year. In 1966 Congress enacted legislation to establish a
Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources (known as the
Stratton Commission for its chairman, Julius Stratton) that was to
recommend a comprehensive national program to explore the oceans,
develop marine and coastal resources, and conserve the sea. The
Stratton Commission's report and recommendations have shaped U.S. ocean
policy for three decades. We have long needed to take a hard look at
this legacy, and a national Ocean Commission could comprehensively
evaluate concerns that cannot be viewed effectively through current
federal processes or through privately-commissioned studies. For
example, an Ocean Commission could evaluate charges that the most
critical coastal management issues, such as fishery conservation and
data needs, are not given appropriate priority and funding. It could
consider whether ocean management regimes that have developed over the
last 30 years under a variety of agencies are duplicative and
uncoordinated, resulting in costly or time-consuming requirements that
may provide little incremental environmental benefit. Finally, it could
address the argument that we lack a plan to evalute and plan for future
resource needs or to derive benefits from discoveries made possible by
advances in ocean technology.

It would be difficult to coherently address all these concerns
without the high-level comprehensive review provided by this
legislation. The Oceans Act of 2000 would establish a 16-member
Commission, similar to the Stratton Commission, to examine ocean and
coastal activities and report within 18 months on recommendations for a
national policy. The Commission members would be selected from
individuals nominated by majority and minority representatives in both
houses of Congress. Eligible individuals include those representing
state and local governments, ocean-related industries and public
interest groups. I have included new provisions stating that the
membership should be balanced geographically to the extent consistent
with maintaining the highest level of expertise.
The Oceans Act of 2000 specifies that the Commission should examine
concerns that range from priority and planning issues to regulatory
reform. The Commission is specifically charged with evaluating the
cumulative regulatory effect of the myriad of ocean and coastal
management regimes, and crafting recommendations for resolving
inconsistencies. To ensure we can meet future technical and funding
challenges and set our national priorities appropriately, the
Commission is directed to review the known and anticipated supply of,
and demand for, ocean and coastal resources, as well as review
opportunities for development or investment in new products,
technologies, or markets related to ocean and coastal activities.
Because I believe the Commission should focus on large-scale ocean and
coastal policy questions, the bill includes a provision clarifying that
the Commission recommendations shall not be specific to the lands and
waters within a single state.
Finally, once the Commission issues its recommendations, the
President must report to Congress on how he will respond to or
implement Commission recommendations. We want to be sure that this body
is fully informed of, and participates in, how the Nation proceeds once
the Commission has completed its work. Finally, the effective date of
the Act is at December 31, 2000 in order to enable the current
Administration to complete its interagency ocean initiative before the
end of the current term, and allow the incoming Administration time to
evaluate the Commission nominees and make appointments.
This version does not include a federal interagency Ocean Council--I
believe that this function is now being filled by the sub-cabinet level
Ocean Policy Task Force process announced by the Administration last
year. Establishing a second interagency council now would be
duplicative, and it is my firm belief that the independent Commission
will adequately assess whether the existing interagency process is
appropriate or sufficient to address its recommendations. However, it
is my hope that interagency coordination on oceans policy will remain
an important priority for the next Administration. And I look forward
to the day that ocean policy issues are given the highest priority
within the federal government by a Cabinet-level entity, without the
infighting or discord that has impeded our progress on these issues.
Mr. President, this legislation is both appropriate and long overdue.
By the end of this decade about 60% of Americans will live along our
coasts, which account for less than 10% of our land area. I am amazed
that in this era, when we've invested billions of dollars in exploring
other planets, we know so little about the ocean and coastal systems
upon which we and other living

[[Page S1913]]

things depend. Large storms events like Hurricanes Floyd and Hugo,
driven by ocean-circulation patterns, pose the ultimate risk to human
health and safety. El Nino-related climate events have led to increased
incidence of malaria in areas of Colombia and Venezuela. Harmful algal
blooms have been linked to deaths of sea lions in California and
manatees in Florida, and we are still searching to understand their
effects on humans. Mr. President, the oceans are integral to our lives
but we are not putting a priority on finding ways to learn more about
them, and what they may hold for our future. The oceans are home to 80%
of all life forms on Earth, but only 1% of our biotechnology R&D budget
will focus on marine life forms. Of the 4 manned submersibles in the
world capable of descending to half of the ocean's maximum depth, not a
single one of them is operated by the United States!
The Stratton Commission stated in 1969: ``How fully and wisely the
United States uses the sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly
its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands for
food and raw materials, its positions and influence in the World
community, and the quality of the environment in which its people
live.'' those words are as true today as they were 30 years ago.
Mr. President, it is time to look towards the next 30 years. This
bill offers us the vision and understanding needed to establish sound
ocean and coastal policies for the 21st century, and I think the
cosponsors of the legislation for joining with me in recognizing its
significance. We look forward to working together in the bipartisan
spirit of the Stratton Commission to enact legislation this year that
ensures the development of an integrated national ocean and coastal
policy well into the next millennium.<bullet>

____________________