[Congressional Record: November 17, 1999 (Senate)] [Page S14696-S14739] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr17no99-190] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Burns): S. 1938. A bill to provide for the return of fair and reasonable fees to the Federal Government for the use and occupancy of National Forest System land under the recreation residence program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. cabin user fee fairness act of 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that will set a new course for the Forest Service in determining fees for forest lots on which families and individuals have been authorized to build cabins for seasonal recreation since the early part of this century. I am pleased to have Senators Mike Crapo, Craig Thomas, and Conrad Burns joining me in sponsoring this legislation, which is a companion bill to H.R. 3327, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman George Nethercutt. In 1915, under the Term Permit Act, Congress set up a program to give families the opportunity to recreate on our public lands through the so-called recreation residence program. Today, 15,000 of these forest cabins remain, providing generation after generation of families and their friends a respite from urban living and an opportunity to use our public lands. These cabins stand in sharp contrast to many aspects of modern outdoor recreation, yet are an important aspect of the mix recreation opportunities for the American public. While many of us enjoy fast, off-road machines and watercraft or hiking to the backcountry with high-tech gear, others enjoy a relaxing weekend at their cabin in the woods with their family and friends. The recreation residence programs allows families all across the country an opportunity to use our national forests. This quiet, somewhat uneventful [[Page S14697]] program continues to produce close bonds and remarkable memories for hundreds of thousands of Americans, but in order to secure the future of the cabin program, this Congress needs to reexamine the basis on which fees are now being determined. Roughly 20 years ago, the Forest Service saw the need to modernize the regulations under which the cabin program is administered. Acknowledging that the competition for access and use of forest resources has increased dramatically since 1915, both the cabin owners and the agency wanted a formal understanding about the rights and obligations of using and maintaining these structures. New rules that resulted nearly a decade later reaffirmed the cabins as a valid recreational use of forest land. At the same time, the new policy reflected numerous limitations on use that are felt to be appropriate in order to keep areas of the forest where cabins are located open for recreational use by other forest visitors. Commercial use of the cabins is prohibited, as is year-round occupancy by the owner. Owners are restricted in the size, shape, paint color and presence of other structures or installations on the cabin lot. The only portion of a lot that is controlled by the cabin owner is that portion of the lot that directly underlies the footprint of the cabin itself. At some locations, the agency has determined a need to remove cabins for a variety of reasons related to ``higher public purposes'' and cabin owners wanted to be certain in the writing of new regulations that a fair process would guide any future decisions about cabin removal. At other locations, some cabins have been destroyed by fire, avalanche or falling trees, and a more reliable process of determining whether such cabins might be rebuilt or relocated was needed. It was determined, therefore, that this recreational program would be tied more closely to the forest planning process. The question of an appropriate fee to be paid for the opportunity of constructing and maintaining a cabin in the woods was also addressed at that time. Although the agency's policies for administration of the cabin program have, overall, held up well over time, the portion dealing with periodic redetermination of fees proved in the last few years to be a failure. A base fee was determined 20 years ago by an appraisal of sales of comparable undeveloped lots in the real estate market adjacent to the national forest where a cabin was located. The new policy called for reappraisal of the value of the lot 20 years later--a trigger that led to initiation of the reappraisal process in 1995. In the meantime, according to the policy, annual adjustments to the base fee would be tracked by the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), which proved to be a faulty mechanism for this purpose. Annual adjustments to the fee based on movements of the IPD failed entirely to keep track of the booming land values associated with recreation development. As the results of actual reappraisals on the ground began reaching my office in 1997, it became clear that far more than the inoperative IPD was out of alignment in determining fees for the cabin owners. At the Pettit Lake tract in Idaho's Sawtooth National Recreation Area, the new base fees skyrocketed into alarming five-digit amounts-- so high that a single annual fee was nearly enough money to buy raw land outside the forest and construct a cabin. Meanwhile, the agency's appraisal methodology was resulting in new base fees in South Dakota, in Florida, and in some locations in Colorado that were actually lower than the previous fee. Very generally speaking, the value of the use of the forest lot is approximately the same for any cabin owner, whether they are tucked into what has become in recent years the Sawtooth National Recreation Area of Idaho, or high in the Sierra Mountain range of California, or in the lowland forests of the southeastern States. Yet Idaho cabin owners are now expected to pay a new average fee of $9,221 each year, while cabin owners in Kentucky will be paying a new average fee of $140. At the request of the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture in 1998, the cabin owners named a coalition of leaders of their various national and State cabin owner associations to examine the methodology being used by the Forest Service to determine fees. It became obvious to these laymen that analysis of appraisal methodology and the determination of fees was beyond their grasp, and a prestigious consulting appraiser was retained to guide the cabin owners through their task. The report and recommendations of the coalition's consulting appraiser is available from my office for those who might wish to examine the details. At the bottom line, it was learned that the Forest Service--contrary to its own policy--was appraising and affixing value to the lots being provided to cabin owners as if this land were fully developed, legally subdivided, fee simple residential land. In other words, the agency has been capturing the values associated with a variety of structures and services that the homeowners themselves (not the agency) provide. The Forest Service, in setting fees on this basis, has been capturing incremental values assigned by a developer at various stages of development for risk, expectations of profit and other factors. My goal is to see that the cabin program remains affordable for American families. Consistent with the recommendations of the coalition's consulting appraiser, the methodology for determining fees is directed toward the value of the use to the cabin owner--not what the market would bear, should the Forest Service decide to sell off its assets. This is highly technical legislation. Its purpose is to send a clear set of instructions to appraisers in the field and a clear set of instructions to forest managers to respect the results of appraisals undertaken to place value on the raw land being offered cabin owners. I intend to hold hearings on this legislation early in the next session. I urge each of my colleagues to be in contact with cabin owners in their State during the congressional recess. There are more than 15,000 families out there who fear that the long tradition of cabin-based forest recreation is nearing an end because the agencies fee mechanism has made the program unaffordable for all but the wealthy. These cabin owners and I would wholeheartedly welcome the support and cosponsorship of all Senators for this important legislation. 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. 1938 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 ``Fair Cabin User Fee Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds that-- (1) the recreation residence program is-- (A) a valid use of forest land and 1 of the multiple uses of the National Forest System; and (B) an important component of the recreation program of the Forest Service; (2) cabins located on forest land have provided a unique recreation experience to a large number of cabin owners, their families, and guests each year since Congress authorized the recreation residence program in 1915; (3) tract associations, cabin owners, their extended families, guests, and others that regularly use and enjoy forest cabin tracts have contributed significantly toward efficient management of the program and the stewardship of forest land; (4) cabin user fees have traditionally generated income to the Federal Government in amounts significantly greater than the Federal cost of administering the program; (5) the rights and privileges granted to owners of cabins authorized under the program have steadily diminished while regulatory restrictions and fees charged under the program have steadily increased; and (6) the current fee determination procedure has been shown to incorrectly reflect market value and value of use. SEC. 3. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Act are-- (1) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the National Forest System recreation residence program is managed to preserve the opportunity for individual and family-oriented recreation at a reasonable cost; and (2) to develop and implement a more efficient, cost- effective procedure for determining cabin user fees that better reflects the probable value of that use by the cabin owner, taking into consideration the limitations of the authorization and other relevant market factors. [[Page S14698]] SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means the Forest Service. (2) Authorization.--The term ``authorization'' means a special use permit for the use and occupancy of National Forest System land by a cabin owner under the authority of the program. (3) Base cabin user fee.--The term ``base cabin user fee'' means the initial fee for an authorization that results from the appraisal of a lot in accordance with sections 6 and 7. (4) Cabin.--The term ``cabin'' means a privately built and owned structure authorized for use and occupancy on National Forest System land. (5) Cabin user fee.--The term ``cabin user fee'' means a special use fee paid annually by a cabin owner to the Secretary in accordance with this Act. (6) Cabin owner.--The term ``cabin owner'' means-- (A) a person authorized by the agency to use and to occupy a cabin on National Forest System land; and (B) an heir or assign of such a person. (7) Caretaker cabin.--The term ``caretaker cabin'' means a caretaker residence occupied in limited cases in which caretaker services are necessary to maintain the security of a tract. (8) Center.--The term ``Center'' means the Federal Center for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association. (9) Current cabin user fee.--The term ``current cabin user fee'' means the most recent cabin user fee that results from an annual adjustment to the base cabin user fee in accordance with section 8. (10) Lot.--The term ``lot'' means a parcel of land of the National Forest System on which a cabin owner is authorized to build, use, occupy, and maintain a cabin and related improvements. (11) Program.--The term ``program'' means the recreation residence program established under the Act of March 4, 1915 (38 Stat. 1101, chapter 144). (12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service. (13) Tract.--The term ``tract'' means an established location within a National Forest containing 1 or more cabins authorized in accordance with the program. (14) Tract association.--The term ``tract association'' means a cabin owner association in which all cabin owners within a tract are eligible for membership. SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF RECREATION RESIDENCE PROGRAM. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that the basis and procedure for calculating cabin user fees results in a reasonable and fair fee for an authorization that reflects the probable value of the use and occupancy of a lot to the cabin owner in accordance with subsection (b). (b) Determination of Value.--The value of the use and occupancy of a lot referred to in subsection (a)-- (1) shall not be equivalent to a rental fee of the lot; and (2) shall reflect regional economic influences, as determined by an appraisal of the value of use of the National Forest in which the lot is located. SEC. 6. APPRAISALS. (a) Requirements for Conducting Appraisals.--In implementing and conducting an appraisal process for determining cabin user fees, the Secretary shall-- (1) establish an appraisal process to determine the value of the fee simple estate of a typical lot or lots within a tract, with adjustments to reflect limitations arising from the authorization and special use permit; (2) enter into a contract with an appropriate professional organization for the development of specific appraisal guidelines in accordance with subsection (b), subject to public comment and congressional review; (3) require that an appraisal be performed by a State- certified general real estate appraiser, selected by the Secretary and licensed to practice in the State in which the lot is located; (4) provide the appraiser with-- (A) appraisal guidelines developed in accordance with this Act; and (B) a copy of the special use permit associated with the typical lot to be appraised, with an instruction to the appraiser to consider any prohibitions or limitations contained in the authorization; (5) notwithstanding any other provision of law, require the appraiser to coordinate the assignment closely with affected parties by seeking advice, cooperation, and information from cabin owners and tract associations; (6) require that the appraiser perform the appraisal in compliance with-- (A) the most current edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice on the date of the appraisal; (B) the most current edition of the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions on the date of the appraisal; and (C) the specific appraisal guidelines developed in accordance with this Act; (7) require that the appraisal report be a self-contained report (as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice); (8) require that the appraisal report comply with the reporting guidelines established by the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions; and (9) before accepting any appraisal, conduct a review of the appraisal to ensure that the guidelines made available to the appraiser have been followed and that the appraised values are properly supported. (b) Specific Appraisal Guidelines.--In the development of specific appraisal guidelines in accordance with paragraph (a)(2), the instructions to an appraiser shall require, at a minimum, the following: (1) Appraisal of a typical lot.-- (A) In general.--In conducting an appraisal under this paragraph, the appraiser shall appraise a typical lot or lots within a tract that are selected by the cabin owners and the agency in a manner consistent with the policy of the program. (B) Appraisal.--In appraising a typical lot or lots within a tract, the appraiser shall-- (i) consult with affected cabin owners; and (ii) appraise the typical lot or lots selected for purposes of comparison with other lots or groups of lots in the tract having similar value characteristics (rather than appraising each individual lot). (B) Estimate of market value of typical lot.-- (i) In general.--The appraiser shall estimate the market value of a typical lot as a parcel of undeveloped, raw land that has been made available for use and occupancy by the cabin owner on a seasonal or periodic basis. (ii) No equivalence to legally subdivided lot.--The appraiser shall not appraise the typical lot as being equivalent to a legally subdivided lot. (2) Requirement for analysis of comparable sales.--The appraisal shall be based on a prioritized analysis of 1 or more categories of sales of comparable land as follows: (A) Larger parcels.--Sales of larger, privately-owned, and preferably unimproved parcels of rural land, generally similar in size to the tract being examined, shall be given the most weight in the analysis. (B) Smaller parcels.--Sales of smaller, privately-owned, and preferably unimproved parcels of rural land that are not part of an established subdivision shall be given secondary weight in the analysis. (C) Mapped and recorded parcels.--Sales of privately-owned parcels in a mapped and recorded rural subdivision shall be given the least weight in the analysis. (3) Exception for certain sales of land.--In conducting an analysis under paragraph (2), the appraiser shall select sales of comparable land that are outside the area of influence of-- (A) land affected by urban growth boundaries; (B) land for which a government or institution holds a conservation or recreational easement; or (C) land designated for conservation or recreational purposes by Congress, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. (4) Adjustments for typical value influences.-- (A) In general.--The appraiser shall consider and adjust the price of sales of comparable land for all typical value influences described in subparagraph (B). (B) Value influences.--The typical value influences referred to in subparagraph (A) include-- (i) differences in the locations of the parcels; (ii) accessibility, including limitations on access attributable to-- (I) weather; (II) the condition of roads or trails; or (III) other factors; (iii) the presence of marketable timber; (iv) limitations on, or the absence of, services such as law enforcement, fire control, road maintenance, or snow plowing; (v) the condition and regulatory compliance of any site improvements; and (vi) any other typical value influences described in standard appraisal literature. (5) Adjustments for restrictions on use.--In evaluating the sale of a comparable fee simple parcel, an adjustment to the sale price of the parcel shall be made to reflect the influence of prohibitions or limitations on use or benefits imposed by the agency that affect the value of the subject cabin lot, including-- (A) any prohibition against year-round use and occupancy or any other restriction that limits or reduces the type or amount of cabin use and occupancy; (B) any limitation on the right of the cabin owner to sell, lease, or rent the cabin without restrictions imposed by the Secretary; (C) any limitation on, or prohibition against, improvements to the lot, such as remodeling or enlargement of the cabin, construction of additional structures, landscaping, signs, fencing, clothes drying lines, mail boxes, swimming pools, or other recreational facilities; and (D) any limitation on, or prohibition against, use of the lot for placement of amenities such as playground equipment, domestic livestock, recreational vehicles, or boats. (6) Adjustments to sales of comparable parcels.-- (A) In general.-- (i) Utilities provided by agency.--Only utilities (such as water, sewer, electricity, or telephone) or access roads or trails that are clearly established as of the date of the appraisal as having been provided and maintained by the agency at a lot shall be included in the appraisal. (ii) Features provided by cabin owner.--All cabin facilities, decks, docks, patios, and [[Page S14699]] other nonnatural features (including utilities or access)-- (I) shall be presumed to have been provided by, or funded by, the cabin owner; and (II) shall be excluded from the appraisal by adjusting any comparable sales with the nonnatural features referred to in subparagraph (B)(ii). (iii) Withdrawal of utility or access by agency.--If, during the term of an authorization, the agency makes a substantial and materially adverse change in the provision or maintenance of any utility or access, the cabin owner shall have the right to request and obtain a new determination of the base cabin user fee at the expense of the agency. (B) Adjustment for improvements.-- (i) In general.--The appraiser shall consider and adjust the price of each sale of a comparable parcel for all nonnatural features referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii) that-- (I) are present at, or add value to, the parcel; but (II) are not present at the lot being appraised or not included in the appraisal under subparagraph (A). (ii) Adjustments.--An adjustment to the price of a parcel sold under this subparagraph shall include allowances for matters such as-- (I) depreciated current replacement costs of installing nonnatural features referred to in clause (i) at the typical lot being appraised, including an allowance for entrepreneurial profit and overhead; (II) likely construction difficulties for nonnatural features referred to in clause (i) at the lot being appraised; and (III) the deduction in price that would be taken in the market as a risk allowance if-- (aa) a parcel does not have adequate access or adequate sewer or water systems; and (bb) there is a risk of failure or material cost overruns in attempting to provide the systems referred to in item (aa). (C) Reappraisal for and recalculation of base cabin user fee.--Periodically, but not less often than once every 10 years, the Secretary shall recalculate the base cabin user fee (including conducting any reappraisal required to recalculate the base cabin user fee). SEC. 7. CABIN USER FEES. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish the cabin user fee as the amount that is equal to 5 percent of the value of the lot, as determined in accordance with section 6, reflecting an adjustment to the market rate of return based solely on-- (1) the limited term of the authorization; (2) the absence of significant property rights normally attached to fee simple ownership; and (3) the public right of access to, and use of, any open portion of the lot on which the cabin or other enclosed improvements are not located. (b) Fee for Caretaker Residences.--The base cabin user fee for a lot on which a caretaker residence is located shall not be greater than the base cabin user fee charged for the authorized use of a similar typical lot in the tract. (c) Annual Cabin User Fee in the Event of Determination Not To Reissue Authorization.--If the Secretary determines that an authorization should not be reissued at the end of a term, the Secretary shall-- (1) establish as the new base cabin user fee for the remaining term of the authorization the amount charged as the cabin user fee in the year that was 10 years before the year in which the authorization expires; and (2) calculate the current cabin user fee for each of the remaining 9 years of the term of the authorization by multiplying-- (i) \1/10\ of the new base cabin user fee; by (ii) the number of years remaining in the term of the authorization after the year for which the cabin user fee is being calculated. (d) Annual Cabin User Fee in Event of Changed Conditions.-- If a review of a decision to convert a lot to an alternative public use indicates that the continuation of the authorization for use and occupancy of the cabin by the cabin owner is warranted, and the decision is subsequently reversed, the Secretary may require the cabin owner to pay any portion of annual cabin user fees, as calculated in accordance with subsection (d), that were forgone as a result of the expectation of termination of use and occupancy of the cabin by the cabin owner. (e) Termination of Fee Obligation in Loss Resulting From Acts of God or Catastrophic Events.--On a determination by the agency that, due to an act of God or a catastrophic event, a lot cannot be safely occupied and that the authorization for the lot should accordingly be terminated, the fee obligation of the cabin owner shall terminate effective on the date of the occurrence of the act or event. SEC. 8. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF CABIN USER FEE. (a) In General.--The Secretary shall adjust the cabin user fee annually, using a rolling 5-year average of a published price index in accordance with subsection (b) or (c) that reports changes in rural or similar land values in the State, county, or market area in which the lot is located. (b) Initial Index.-- (1) In general.--For the period of 10 years beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall use changes in agricultural land prices in the appropriate State or county, as reported in the Index of Agricultural Land Prices published by the Department of Agriculture, to determine the annual adjustment to the cabin user fee in accordance with subsections (a) and (d). (2) Statewide changes.--In determining the annual adjustment to the cabin user fee for an authorization located in a county in which agricultural land prices are influenced by the factors described in section 6(b)(3), the Secretary shall use average statewide changes in the State in which the lot is located. (c) New Index.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary may select and use an index other than the index described in subsection (b)(2) to adjust a cabin user fee if the Secretary determines that a different index better reflects change in the value of a lot over time. (2) Selection process.--Before selecting a new index, the Secretary shall-- (A) solicit and consider comments from the public; and (B) not later than 60 days before the date on which the Secretary makes a final index selection, submit any proposed selection of a new index to-- (i) the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate. (d) Limitation.--In calculating an annual adjustment to the base cabin user fee, the Secretary shall-- (1) limit any annual fee adjustment to an amount that is not more than 5 percent per year when the change in agricultural land values exceeds 5 percent in any 1 year; and (2) apply the amount of any adjustment that exceeds 5 percent to the annual fee payment for the next year in which the change in the index factor is less than 5 percent. SEC. 9. PAYMENT OF CABIN USER FEES. (a) Due Date for Payment of Fees.--A cabin user fee shall be paid or prepaid annually by the cabin owner on a monthly, quarterly, annual, or other schedule, as determined by the Secretary. (b) Payment of Equal or Lesser Fee.--If, in accordance with section 7, the Secretary determines that the amount of a new base cabin user fee is equal to or less than the current base cabin user fee, the Secretary shall require payment of the new base cabin user fee by the cabin owner in accordance with subsection (a). (c) Payment of Greater Fee.--If, in accordance with section 7, the Secretary determines that the amount of a new base cabin user fee is greater than the current base cabin user fee, the Secretary shall-- (1) require full payment of the new base cabin user fee in the first year following completion of the fee determination procedure if the increase in the amount of the new base cabin user fee is not more than 100 percent of the most recently paid cabin user fee; or (2) phase in the increase over the current cabin user fee in approximately equal increments over 3 years if the increase in the amount of the new base cabin user fee is greater than 100 percent of the most recently paid base cabin user fee. (d) Requirement for Payment During Arbitration, Appeal, or Judicial Review.--If arbitration, an appeal, or judicial review concerning a cabin user fee is brought in accordance with section 11 or 12, the Secretary shall-- (1) suspend annual payment by the cabin owner of any increase in the cabin user fee, pending completion of the arbitration, appeal, or judicial review; and (2) make any adjustments, as necessary, that result from the findings of the arbitration, appeal, or judicial review by providing to the cabin owner-- (A)(i) a credit toward future cabin user fee payments; or (ii) a refund for any overpayment of the cabin user fee; and (B) a supplemental billing for any additional amount of the cabin user fee that is due. SEC. 10. RIGHT OF SECOND APPRAISAL. (a) Right of Second Appraisal.--On receipt of notice from the Secretary of the determination of a new base cabin user fee, the cabin owner-- (1) not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice is received, shall notify the Secretary of the intent of the cabin owner to obtain a second appraisal; and (2) may obtain, within 1 year following the date of receipt of the notice under this subsection, at the expense of the cabin owner, a second appraisal of the typical lot on which the initial appraisal was conducted. (b) Conduct of Second Appraisal.--In conducting a second appraisal, the appraiser selected by the cabin owner shall-- (1) consider all relevant factors in accordance with this Act (including guidelines developed under section 6(a)(2)); and (2) notify the Secretary of any material differences of fact or opinion between the initial appraisal conducted by the agency and the second appraisal. (c) Request for Reconsideration of Base Cabin User Fee.--A cabin owner shall submit to the Secretary any request for reconsideration of the base cabin user fee, based on the results of the second appraisal, not later than 60 days after the receipt of the report for a second appraisal. (d) Reconsideration of Base Cabin User Fee.--On receipt of a request from the cabin owner under subsection (c) for reconsideration of a base cabin user fee, not later than 60 days after the date of receipt of the request, the Secretary shall-- [[Page S14700]] (1) review the initial appraisal of the agency; (2) review the results and commentary from the second appraisal; (3) determine a new base cabin user fee in an amount that is-- (A) equal to the fee determined by the initial or the second appraisal; or (B) within the range of values, if any, between the initial and second appraisals; and (4) notify the cabin owner of the amount of the new base cabin fee. SEC. 11. RIGHT OF ARBITRATION. (a) In General.-- (1) Request for arbitration.--Not later than 30 days after the receipt of notice of a new base cabin fee under section 10(d)(4), the tract association may request arbitration if a cabin owner in the tract and the Secretary are unable to reach agreement on the amount of the base cabin user fee determined in accordance with section 10. (2) Identification of Third-Party Neutrals.--If arbitration is requested under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall promptly request the Center to develop a list of the names of not fewer than 20 appraisers and 10 attorneys who possess appropriate training and experience in valuations of land and interest in land to serve as qualified third-party neutrals. (b) Arbitration.--Not later than 30 days after the receipt of a request from the tract association for arbitration, the Secretary shall-- (1) notify the Center of the request; and (2) request the Center to provide to the Secretary and the tract association, within 15 days-- (A) instructions related to arbitration procedures; and (B) the list of qualified third-party neutrals described in subsection (a)(2). (c) Arbitration Panel.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 15 days after the receipt of the list described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary and the tract association may each recommend the names of 2 appraisers and 1 attorney from the list for consideration in the selection of an arbitration panel by the Center. (2) Availability of list.--The Secretary and the tract association shall disclose to each other the names of third- party neutrals recommended under paragraph (1). (3) Option to eliminate recommended neutrals.--The Secretary and the tract association may each peremptorily eliminate from consideration for the arbitration panel 1 third-party neutral recommended under paragraph (1). (4) Selection by center.--From the third-party neutrals recommended to the Center under paragraph (1) that are not eliminated from consideration under paragraph (3), the Center shall select and retain an arbitration panel consisting of 2 appraisers and 1 attorney. (5) Notification of establishment.--Not later than 5 days after the selection of members of the arbitration panel, the Center shall notify the Secretary and the tract association of the establishment of the arbitration panel. (d) Arbitration Procedure.-- (1) Submission of information.--Not later than 30 days after notification by the Center of the establishment of the arbitration panel under subsection (c)(3), each party shall submit to the arbitration panel-- (A) the appraisal report of each party, including comments, if any, of material differences of fact or opinion related to the initial appraisal or the second appraisal; (B) a copy of the authorization associated with any typical lot that was subject to appraisal; (C) a copy of this Act; and (D) a copy of appraisal guidelines developed in accordance with section 6(a)(2). (2) Hearing or field inspection.--On agreement of both parties, the arbitration may be conducted without a hearing or a field inspection. (3) Schedule for decision.-- (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), not later than 60 days after the receipt of all materials described in paragraph (1), the arbitration panel shall prepare and forward to the Secretary a written advisory decision on the appropriate amount of the base cabin user fee. (B) Extension.--If the arbitration panel or the parties to the arbitration determine that a hearing or field inspection is necessary, the date for submission of the advisory decision under subparagraph (A) shall be extended for-- (i) not more than 30 days; or (ii) in the case of difficult or hazardous road or weather conditions, such an additional period of time as is necessary to complete the inspection. (4) Determination of recommended base cabin user fee.--The base cabin user fee recommended by the arbitration panel shall fall within the range of values, if any, between the initial and second appraisals submitted to the arbitration panel by the parties. (e) Adoption of Recommended Base Cabin User Fee.-- (1) In general.--Not later than 45 days after the receipt of the recommendation by the arbitration panel, the Secretary shall make a determination to adopt or reject the recommended base cabin user fee. (2) Notice to tract association.--Not later than 15 days after making the determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide notice of the determination to the tract association. (f) No Admission of Fact or Recommendation.--Neither the fact that arbitration in accordance with this section has occurred, nor the recommendation of the arbitration panel, shall be admissible in any court or administrative proceeding. (g) Costs of Arbitration.-- (1) Fees.-- (A) In general.--In addition to amounts collected under paragraph (2), the Center may charge a reasonable fee to each party to an arbitration under this Act for the provision of arbitration services. (B) Transfer.--Fees collected under this paragraph shall be transferred to the Secretary for use in the administration of the program without further Act of appropriation. (2) Cost sharing.--The agency and the tract association shall each pay 50 percent of the costs incurred by the Center in establishing and administering an arbitration in accordance with this section, unless the arbitration panel recommends that either the agency or the tract association bear the entire cost of establishing and administering the arbitration. (h) Funding.-- (1) Authorization of appropriations for initial costs.-- There is authorized to be appropriated to the agency for the initial costs of establishing and administering the program not to exceed $15,000. (2) Arbitration fees.--Any amounts exceeding the amount authorized by paragraph (1) that are required for the administration of the program shall be derived from arbitration fees charged under subsection (g)(1). SEC. 12. RIGHT OF APPEAL AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. (a) Rights of Appeal.--Notwithstanding any action of a cabin owner to exercise rights in accordance with section 10 or 11, the Secretary shall by regulation grant the cabin owner the right to an administrative appeal of the determination of a new base cabin user fee. (b) Judicial Review.--A cabin owner that is adversely affected by a final decision of the Secretary under this Act may commence a civil action in United States district court. SEC. 13. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAW AND RIGHTS. (a) Consistency With Rights of the United States.--Nothing in this Act limits or restricts any right, title, or interest of the United States in or to any land or resource. (b) Special Rule for Alaska.--In determining a cabin user fee in the State of Alaska, the Secretary shall not establish or impose a cabin fee or a condition affecting a cabin fee that is inconsistent with the requirements under section 1303(d) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3193(d)). SEC. 14. REGULATIONS. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to implement this Act. SEC. 15. TRANSITION PROVISIONS. (a) In General.--On enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall-- (1) suspend appraisal activities related to existing authorizations until new rules, policies, and procedures are promulgated in accordance with this Act; and (2) temporarily charge an annual cabin user fee for each lot that is-- (A) an amount equal to the cabin user fee for the lot that was in effect on September 30, 1995, adjusted by application of the Implicit Price Deflator-Gross National Product Index, if no appraisal of the lot on which the cabin is located was completed after that date and before the date of enactment of this Act; (B) an amount that is not more than 100 percent greater than the cabin user fee in effect on September 30, 1995, adjusted by application of the Implicit Price Deflator-Gross National Product Index prior to reappraisal, if an appraisal conducted after that date but before the date of enactment of this Act resulted in the increase; or (C) the cabin user fee in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, if an appraisal conducted after September 30, 1995, including adjustments resulting from application of the Implicit Price Deflator-Gross National Product Index before the date of enactment of this Act, resulted a base cabin user fee that is not greater than the fee in effect before the appraisal. (b) Conduct of Appraisals Under New Law.--On publication of new rules, policies, and procedures under this Act, the Secretary shall carry out any appraisals of lots and determinations of fees that were not completed between September 30, 1995, and the date of enactment of this Act. (c) Request for New Appraisal Under New Law.--Not later than 2 years after the promulgation of final regulations and policies and the development of appraisal guidelines in accordance with section 6(a)(2), a cabin owner whose base cabin user fee was adjusted subject to an appraisal completed after September 30, 1995, but before the date of enactment of this Act, may request that the Secretary conduct a new appraisal and determine a new fee in accordance with this Act. (d) Conduct of New Appraisal.--On receiving a request under subsection (c), the Secretary shall conduct, and bear all costs incurred in conducting, a new appraisal and fee determination in accordance with this Act. (e) Assumption of New Base Cabin User Fee.--In the absence of a request under subsection (c) for a new appraisal and fee determination from a cabin owner whose cabin [[Page S14701]] user fee was determined as a result of an appraisal conducted after September 30, 1995, but before the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary may consider the base cabin user fee resulting from the appraisal conducted between September 30, 1995, and the date of enactment of this Act to be the base cabin user fee that complies with the transition provisions of this Act. (f) Transitional Cabin User Fee Obligation.-- (1) In general.--In determining the liability of the cabin owner for payment of fees for the period of time between the date of enactment of this Act and the determination of a base cabin user fee in accordance with this Act, the Secretary shall-- (A) require the cabin owner to remit any balance owed for any underpayment of an annual cabin user fee; or (B) if an overpayment of a cabin user fee has occurred, credit the cabin owner, or an heir or assign of the cabin owner, toward future cabin user fee obligations. (2) Billing.--The agency shall bill a cabin owner for amounts determined to be owed under paragraph (1)(A) in approximately equal increments over 3 years. ______ By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Lautenberg): S. 1940. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reaffirm the United States' historic commitment to protecting refugees who are fleeing persecution or torture; to the Committee on the Judiciary. the refugee protection act Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today Senators Brownback, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Jeffords, and I are introducing the Refugee Protection Act of 1999, a bill to limit and reform the expedited removal system currently operating in our ports of entry. In 1996, I introduced an amendment that would have only authorized the use of expedited removal at times of immigration emergencies. The bill I introduce today--with the cosponsorship of two Republican and three Democratic Senators--is modeled on that proposal. That amendment passed the Senate with bipartisan support, but was omitted from the bill that was reported out of a partisan, closed conference. As a result, expedited removal took effect on April 1, 1997. America's historic reputation as a beacon for refugees has suffered as a consequence. Expedited removal allows INS inspections officers summarily to remove aliens who arrive in the United States without travel documents, or even with facially valid travel documents that the officers merely suspect are fraudulent, unless the aliens utter the magic words ``political asylum'' upon their first meeting with American immigration authorities. This policy is fundamentally unwise and unfair, both in theory and in practice. First, this policy ignores the fact that many deserving asylum applicants are forced to travel without papers. For example, victims of repressive governments often find themselves forced to flee their homelands at a moment's notice, without time or means to acquire proper documentation. Or a government may systematically strip refugees of their documentation, as we saw Serb soldiers do in Kosovo earlier this year. Second, expedited removal places an undue burden on refugees, and places too much authority in the hands of low-level INS officers. Refugees typically arrive at our borders ragged and tired from their ordeals, and often with little or no knowledge of English. Our policy forces them to undergo a secondary inspection interview with a low- level INS officer who can deport them on the spot, subject only to a supervisor's approval. By law, anyone who indicates a fear of persecution or requests asylum during this interview is to be referred for an interview with an asylum officer. But no safeguards exist to guarantee that this happens, and the secondary inspection interviews take place behind closed doors with no witnesses. Indeed, this interview often becomes unduly confrontation and intimidating. As the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights has documented, refugees are detained for as long as 36 hours, are deprived of food and water, and are often shackled. If they are lucky, they will be provided with an interpreter who speaks their language. If they are unlucky, they will receive no interpreter at all, or an interpreter who works for the airline owned by the government that they claim is persecuting them. Such a system is a betrayal of our ideals, and is already producing a human cost. Indeed, only a few years into this new regime, there are extraordinary troubling stories of bona fide refugees who were turned away unjustly at our borders. I will talk about two such refugees today. ``Dem'' (a pseudonym) was a 21-year-old ethnic Albanian student in Kosovo. In October 1998, Serbian police seized him and tortured him for 10 days, accusing him of terrorism and threatening to kill his family. Immediately after this experience, Dem fled Kosovo, without travel documents. He traveled through Albania to Italy, where he purchased a Slovenian passport. In January of this year, he flew via Mexico City to California, hoping to find refuge in the United States. Dem's hopes were not realized. The INS referred him for a secondary inspection interview and provided for a Serbian translator to participate by telephone. Since Dem could speak only Albanian, the interpreter was useless. Instead of finding an interpreter who could speak Albanian, the INS officers simply closed Dem's case, handcuffed his hands behind his back and put him on a plane back to Mexico City. In other words, Dem--a victim of an ethnic conflict that was already front page news in America's newspapers--was removed from the United States without ever being asked in a language he could understand whether he was afraid to return to Kosovo. Luckily, Dem succeeded in a second attempt to enter the United States, has since been found to have a credible fear of persecution, and is now awaiting an asylum hearing. One can only wonder how many refugees in Dem's position never receive such a second chance. While Dem was arriving in Los Angeles this January, a Tamil from Sri Lanka named Arumugam Thevakumar arrived at JFK Airport in New York seeking asylum. Mr. Thevakumar had escaped from Sri Lanka and its bloody civil war, but only after being persecuted by the army because he is a Tamil. When he had his secondary inspection interview, he told the interpreter that he was a refugee and sought asylum. The translator laughed and said that he was unable to translate Mr. Thevakumar's request into English. In addition to battling a language barrier and an uncooperative translator, Mr. Thevakumar's ability to convince the INS of his sincerity was further handicapped by the fact that he was handcuffed and shackled for significant portions of the interview. Following his interview, Mr. Thevakumar was briefly detained and was allowed to telephone a cousin, who arranged for a lawyer. The lawyer contacted the INS to clarify that Mr. Thevakumar wanted to apply for asylum. But the INS sent Mr. Thevakumar back to Istanbul, where his flight to New York had originated, without affording him even the opportunity to show that he was deserving of asylum. Indeed, the INS faulted him for not making his intention to apply for asylum clear during his secondary inspection interview. Mr. Thevakumar's ordeal did not end there. When he landed in Turkey, he was jailed for four days by immigration officials, who beat and interrogated him before handing him over to regular police. When he was finally released by the police, he was referred to a United Nations office in Ankara, halfway across the country from Istanbul. After 15 days of travel wearing clothes that were completely unsuitable for the Turkish winter, he finally arrived at the U.N. office and requested refugee status and asked not to be sent back to Sri Lanka. He is currently living in a Red Cross facility in Turkey. These stories--just two of the many stories demonstrating the human cost of expedited removal--go a long way toward showing the inhumanity of the new immigration regime that Congress imposed in 1996. But refugees are not the only people affected by expedited removal. Human rights groups have also documented numerous cases where people traveling to the United States on business, with proper travel documents, have been removed based on the so-called ``sixth sense'' of a low-level INS officer who suspected that their facially valid documents were fraudulent. In other words, the damage done by expedited removal also threatens the increasingly international American economy--if businesspeople from [[Page S14702]] around the world are treated disrespectfully at our ports of entry, they are likely to take their business elsewhere. But perhaps the most distressing part of expedited removal is that there is no way for us to know how many deserving refugees have been excluded. Because secondary inspection interviews are conducted in secret, we typically only learn about mistakes when refugees manage to make it back to the U.S. a second time, like Dem, or when they are deported to a third country they passed through on their way to the U.S., like Mr. Thevakumar. This uncertainty should lead us to be especially wary of continuing this failed experiment. As I said, my bill would limit the use of expedited removal to times of immigration emergencies, defined as the arrival or imminent arrival of aliens that would substantially exceed the INS' ability to control our borders. The bill gives the Attorney General the discretion to declare an emergency migration situation, and the declaration is good for 90 days. During those 90 days, the INS would be authorized to use expedited removal. The Attorney General is given the power to extend the declaration for further periods of 90 days, in consultation with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. s This framework allows the government to take extraordinary steps when a true immigration emergency threatens our ability to patrol our borders. At the same time, it recognizes that expedited removal is an extraordinary step, and is not an appropriate measure under ordinary circumstances. This bill also provides safeguards that will ensure that refugees are assured of some due process rights, even during immigration emergencies. First, aliens would be given the right to have an immigration judge review a removal order, and would have the right both to speak before the immigration judge on their own behalf and to be represented at the hearing at their own expense. To make these rights meaningful, immigration officers would be required to inform aliens of their rights before they are removed or withdraw their application to enter the country. This provision takes away from low-level INS officers the unilateral power to remove an alien from the United States. Second, expedited removal will not apply to aliens who have fled from a country that engages in serious human rights violations. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, will develop and maintain a list of such countries. This will help ensure that even during an immigration emergency, we will provide added protection for many of our most vulnerable refugees. Third, this bill reforms the procedures used to determine whether an applicant who seeks asylum has a credible fear of persecution. If an asylum officer determines that an applicant does not have a credible fear of persecution, the applicant will now have a right to a prompt review by an immigration judge. The applicant will have the right to appear at that review hearing and to be represented, at the applicant's expense. In addition to providing procedural guarantees, the bill also redefines ``credible fear of persecution'' as a claim for asylum that is not clearly fraudulent and is related to the criteria for granting asylum. In combination, these changes will make it easier for aliens requesting asylum in the United States to receive an appropriate asylum hearing before an immigrant judge. Fourth, the bill clarifies that the Attorney General is not obligated to detain asylum applicants while their claims are pending. Asylum seekers are not criminals and they do not deserve to be imprisoned or detained against their will. There may be cases where detention is appropriate, and this bill allows for such cases, but I believe that that power should only be used in very rare cases. After all, these applicants have by definition demonstrated a credible fear of persecution. Moreover, detaining asylum applicants imposes a significant burden on the taxpayers, who of course must foot the bill for the detention. This bill also gives the Attorney General the ability to release an asylum applicant from detention pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution. Finally, this Refugee Protection Act also addresses a few other problems that have arisen under the restrictive immigration laws Congress passed in 1996. First, it gives aliens the opportunity to demonstrate good cause for filing for asylum after the one-year time limit for claims has expired. By definition, worthy asylum applicants have arrived in the United States following traumatic experiences abroad. They often must spend their first months here learning the language and adjusting to a culture that in many cases is extraordinarily different from the one they know. Therefore, although I can understand the desire to have asylum seekers submit timely applications, we must apply the one-year rule with some discretion and common sense. Indeed, when the Senate passed the 1996 immigration law, it contained a broad ``good cause'' exception that did not survive to become part of the final legislation. The Senate should take up this issue again; we were right in 1996, and the need is still there today. In a similar vein, the bill allows asylum applicants whose claims have been rejected to submit a second application where they can show good cause. No one wants to allow aliens to submit repeated applications and drain the resources of our INS officers and immigration courts. But there are exceptional cases where a second application is justified, beyond the ``changed circumstances'' exception that exists under current law. For example, extraordinarily worthy asylum applicants, unfamiliar with the United States and its legal system, might submit an application without the benefit of counsel and without an understanding of the legal requirements of a successful asylum claim. Such people deserve a second chance to demonstrate that they deserve to receive asylum. In conclusion, I point out that even in 1996, a year in which immigration was as unpopular in this Capitol as I can remember, this body agreed that expedited removal was inappropriate for a country of our ideals and our historic commitment to human rights. And that agreement cut across party lines, as many of my Republican colleagues voted to implement expedited removal only in times of immigration emergencies. I urge them, as well as my fellow Democrats, to support this legislation and to work for its passage before the end of the 106th Congress. Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleagues from Vermont, Senator Leahy and Senator Jeffords, among others, to introduce this bill entitled The Refugee Protection Act of 1999, which restores fairness to our treatment of refugees who arrive at our shores seeking freedom from persecution and oppression. This bill should dramatically reduce incidences where refugees are wrongly returned to their countries to face imprisonment, torture, and even death. It was about 400 years when the refugee Pilgrims arrived in this new land seeking religious liberty. Defined by such events since the earliest days of the Republic, America has provided asylum to those fleeing tyranny and seeking liberty. George Washington urged his fellow citizens ``to render this country more and more a safe and propitious asylum for the unfortunates of other countries.'' In his 1801 First Annual Message, President Thomas Jefferson asked, ``Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?'' In 1996, Congress changed the procedures by which arriving asylum seekers ask for protection in the United States, which our legislation corrects. Previously, arriving asylum seekers presented their claims directly to an immigration judge at an evidentiary hearing. The applicant could present witnesses and documentation to support their claim. Decisions by the immigration judge were subject to administrative and judicial review. The new 1996 law did away with these fundamental due process protections, and instead, granted lower level INS officers the power to make life and death decisions that previously were entrusted to professional immigration judges. This new, unfortunate system of ``expedited removal'' presently allows for the immediate deportation of individuals who arrive without valid travel documents, such as a passport and visa. It can even be used against an individual who has a facially valid visa that INS inspectors suspect was obtained under false pretenses. In short, [[Page S14703]] the process is so expedited and summary that it has resulted in the improper deportation of refugees fleeing persecution and torture. Simply put, our legislation restores the pre-1996 due process procedures, including a judicial review. Last year, Congress addressed the problems of religious persecution which continues to be a serious problem worldwide. Enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act was the first time in the history of democracy that any country had adopted comprehensive, national legislation on religious liberty. That legislation ensures that religious liberty will be an important factor in our nation's foreign policy considerations. In the May 17, 1999 final report to the Secretary of State and to President of the United States, the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad said: Putting an end to such (religious) persecution cannot be accomplished without providing meaningful protection to the victims of religious persecution. We must upgrade domestic procedures that identify and protect refugees and asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution. We must strengthen our overseas refugee processing mechanisms to reach those in need of rescue. . . And, here at home we must eliminate processes such as ``expedited removal'' that can make victims of those fleeing religious persecution rather than providing access to protection. Consistent with this commitment to protect international religious liberty, we must also ensure that persons fleeing religious persecution are not wrongly turned away at our shores because of unfair procedures. This will be accomplished through this Act. The Refugee Protection Act returns fairness to the system by limiting expedited removal procedures only to emergency situations. An ``emergency'' must be declared as such by the Attorney General, and typically involves large numbers of immigrants arriving en masse, so as to overwhelm the INS review system. In the event that ``expedited removal'' is employed, the Act requires an immigration judge to review the summary deportation order. Also, it permits claims for asylum to be filed beyond the one-year deadline created by the 1996 legislation, if there is good cause for the delay or when consideration of the claims is clearly in the interest of justice. Our refugee asylum system reflects both the best and the worst policies, throughout our history as a nation. In 1939, more than 900 Jews aboard the SS St. Louis, who were within sight of Miami, were rejected and forced to return to Europe where they were murdered in concentration camps. Yet when World War II ended, the United States led the effort to establish universally recognized fundamental rights. As a result of this advocacy, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 which recognized a right of asylum. Over the next 30 years the United States provided refuge to numerous people fleeing communism, including to those involved in `underground' democracy movements in Hungary, Cuba, and Southeast Asia. Yet it was not until 1980 that Congress enacted a comprehensive asylum system using the criteria of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention defines a refugee as someone with a ``well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.'' Under the procedures of this Refugee Act of 1980, requests for asylum were decided by an immigration judge, thus providing a fundamental due process protection. Notably, this judicial review was stripped in the 1996 legislation, and is a flaw which our legislation seeks to correct. Fair procedures are critically important in making life or death decisions, as asylum cases can be. At a June 24, 1999 hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, Ms. Lavinia Limon, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services, noted: Once released, torture victims often attempt to flee to countries such as the United States to become invisible and safe, and to survive. But they retain the impact of torture: they are not able to speak of their experiences for fear officials will not believe them or understand them or will regard them as criminals. They often cannot express themselves effectively in asylum interviews because they cannot speak articulately of their experiences and they feel vulnerable to all officials. They have learned to fear government and the police and they do not trust any government officials and authorities to help them. They have been weakened and disabled psychologically from the torture. Many times the victims must flee alone, enduring long periods of separation from their families who might otherwise provide emotional support. Today the need for proper asylum reviews is greater than ever. Worldwide, religious intolerance and ethnic strife turn religious leaders and ordinary citizens into desperate asylum seekers. According to Amnesty International, government-sanctioned torture is practiced in 125 countries. This legislation helps those fleeing intolerable injustices in the name of religious freedom and democracy. Placing the decision squarely in the hands of an immigration judge does not impose an unreasonable or impossible burden on the government. Congress should enact the Refugee Protection Act because it restores the fundamental due process protections needed to ensure that legitimate asylum seekers are not wrongly turned away. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Leahy, Brownback, and Jeffords, to introduce a bill that will reduce the likelihood that people fleeing genuine persecution in their homelands and seeking refuge in America will be unfairly returned to their countries. Mr. President, as you know, our nation has been built by people who arrived on our shores from all over the world. Immigrants have enriched our nation economically, culturally, and in so many other invaluable ways. I don't think anyone can dispute that, of all the countries in the world, our nation has the deepest, richest commitment to welcoming all people who want to make a new home and a new life. At the same time, Mr. President, our nation also has a deep tradition of welcoming those who are fleeing oppression in their native land. From the pilgrims who set foot in present day Massachusetts and Virginia, to the Kosovars who fled brutality in their homeland earlier this year, America has been a safe refuge for those fleeing persecution. Our nation's first president, George Washington, said: ``America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions.'' George Washington said those words in 1783. One hundred and one years later, France would present our country with a gift, a statue called ``Liberty Enlightening the World.'' In 1884, that title was a profound statement of our nation's past, our present and hope for the future. ``Liberty Enlightening the World'' later became known as the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty has these words inscribed on her: . . . Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! Unfortunately, Mr. President, our current asylum and immigration laws have nearly slammed the door shut on victims of persecution, even those who are sure to suffer if returned to their home countries. Current law originates with the passage in 1996 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That law was an attempt to combat illegal immigration. But in the process, Congress denied victims of persecution the protection that our nation historically has offered. The current system provides for the immediate deportation of individuals who arrive without travel documents precisely in order. Now, Mr. President, it's appropriate that we require these documents, but people who have fled torture and great brutality may not have proper documentation because of the circumstances under which they fled their homelands. As a result, genuine victims of persecution face the risk of being turned away at our borders and put on the next plane back to face imprisonment, torture or death. The 1996 law effectively empowers low level INS officers to summarily make the life and death decision as to whether to deport an asylum seeker. Prior to 1996, those decisions were made by an immigration judge. We must return a judicial role to the review of asylum claims. As my colleagues who were here in 1995 and 1996 may recall, the 1996 law [[Page S14704]] was enacted in reaction to a flurry of concern that our border controls were too lax. The debate on the 1996 law was fueled by legitimate concern over criminals who managed to enter the country and commit acts of terrorism or other crimes. In response, the INS began a sensible tightening of the asylum process. In 1994 and 1995, the INS ceased issuing work authorizations at the border. Instead, asylum seekers had to wait until an adjudication of their case before receiving work authorization. As a result, claims for asylum dropped dramatically-- those who were seeking work but did not have a legitimate fear of persecution were no longer claiming asylum. The INS reforms were effective. But the 1996 law went too far. In our rush to keep undesirable asylum applicants out, Congress created a system where those with bona fide asylum claims face the great risk of being immediately deported to face the wrath of oppressive home governments without a real chance to make their case. Because an INS officer has the authority to deport refugees immediately, with no record keeping requirement, it has been difficult to determine exactly how many genuine refugees with a valid fear of persecution in their home countries have been turned away at our airports and borders as a result of the 1996 law. Organizations like the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, however, have been able to collect some data on the extent of the problem. One of the most troubling stories is the case of a 21-year-old Kosovar Albanian known as ``Dem.'' In October 1998, Serb police seized Dem at his home, beat him, and threatened to kill his family. This abuse occurred over a period of ten days. When the Serb police finally released Dem, he fled Kosovo. He eventually made his way to the United States in January of this year, landing in California via Mexico City. When he arrived, the INS arranged for a Serbian translator to assist by telephone with its questioning of Dem. But Dem, a Kosovar Albanian, could not speak Serbian. After the translator spoke with Dem, the translator said something to the INS officer. The INS officer promptly handcuffed and fingerprinted Dem and then put him on a plane back to Mexico City. Fortunately, Dem was not returned to Kosovo. Dem tried re-entering the United States and on this second attempt, he was allowed to apply for asylum. But the facts supporting Dem's asylum claim had not changed. We must fix a system that produces such arbitrary results where people's lives, and American ideals, are at stake. We don't know exactly how many victims of real persecution have been immediately deported, and we obviously don't know exactly what has happened to each victim since enactment of the 1996 law. What we do know is that an asylum seeker who is fleeing torture, abuse or death faces the risk of being kicked out of our country, without even obtaining a perfunctory hearing before an immigration judge. The Refugee Protection Act of 1999 will return fairness and due process to the treatment of asylum seekers. For non-emergency migration situations, the bill would restore the pre-1996 law, when immigration judges were involved in the decision to deport someone who claimed asylum. The current process will continue to apply in emergency migration situations and would designate the Attorney General as the official with authority to determine when an emergency migration situation exists. The bill also would provide that an emergency cannot exist for more than 90 days, unless the Attorney General, after consultation with the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, determines that the emergency situation continues to exist. Mr. President, this is a sensible bill that allows us to scrutinize those who come to our borders, but honors our best traditions and returns fairness and humanity to our treatment of those who are fleeing persecution. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senators Leahy, Brownback and Jeffords in fighting for basic human dignity, decency and justice. Let us lift the torch of ``Liberty Enlightening the World'' once again. Let us not reflexively turn away those whose very lives may depend on a fair hearing as they seek refuge in the United States. ______ By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. DeWine): S. 1941. A bill to amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide assistance to fire departments and fire prevention organizations for the purpose of protecting the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-related hazards; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and friend, Senator DeWine of Ohio, to introduce legislation that would represent our nation's first comprehensive commitment to fire safety. The Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act (the FIRE bill), will, for the first time, provide volunteer and professional firefighters with the resources they need to protect the people and property of their towns and cities. In communities throughout America, firefighters are almost always the first to respond to a call for help. They respond to a fire alarm. They are on the scene of traffic accidents and construction accidents. Emergency medical technicians, who often belong to fire departments, each day answer tens of thousands of calls for medical assistance. And, when a natural or manmade calamity strikes--from hurricanes to school shootings to bombings--firefighters are there without fail, restoring order and saving lives. Given all that they do, it should surprise no one that, across the Nation, fire departments struggle to find resources to help keep our communities safe. As the demands placed on fire departments have grown in volume and magnitude, the ability of local residents to support them has been put to a severe test. As a result, towns and cities throughout the country are struggling mightily to provide the fire departments with the resources they require. The FIRE Act will help localities meet that critical objective. It will provide grants to help localities hire more firefighters, train new and existing personnel to handle the volume and intensity of today's tragedies, and purchase badly needed equipment. This legislation will also provide critical resources to communities to fund fire prevention and education programs so that they can anticipate disasters and respond appropriately. Such programs are critical means of preventing tragedies from occurring in the first place. Eight out of ten fire deaths occur in a place where people feel the safest--their homes. Tragically, our children and the elderly account for a disproportionate number of these deaths. Indeed, preschool children face a risk of death from fire that is more than twice the risk for all age groups combined. While we can and should ensure that the fire equipment and personnel are available to respond to these tragedies, our best defense remains education and prevention. Yet, it is a painful irony that when resources are scarce, education and prevention efforts are often the first to be put on the budgetary chopping block. The legislation Senator DeWine and I are introducing will help ensure that no locality is put in the painful position of choosing between prevention and responding to emergencies. This legislation will enable our fire departments to worry more about saving lives and less about finding dollars. It will enable communities to better prevent disasters, and better train firefighters. I look forward to working with Senator DeWine to successfully advance this legislation in the Senate. It is our shared hope that our colleagues will come to realize that this bill is one whose time has come. Our Nation's firefighters deserve the support that this bill will provide, and I hope that we will give it to them before the end of this Congress. Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, each day, we entrust our lives and the safety of our families, friends, and neighbors to the capable hands of the brave men and women in our local police and fire departments. These individuals have decided that they are willing to risk their lives and safety out of a dedication to their citizens and their commitment to public service. In Congress, we have recognized the dangers inherent in police work by [[Page S14705]] dedicating federal resources to help local police departments. In fact, this year, Fiscal Year (FY) 1999, the federal government spent $11 billion on law enforcement initiatives, such as the COPS program, to help local law enforcement face the daily challenges of their communities. In contrast, though, the federal government spent only $32 million on fire prevention and training. We ask local firefighters to risk no less than their lives every time they respond to a fire alarm. We ask them to risk their lives responding to the approximately two million reports of fire that they receive on an annual basis. We expect them to be willing to give their lives in exchange for the lives of our families, neighbors, and friends once every 71 seconds while responding to the 400,000 residential fires--fires which represent only about 22% of all fires reported. We count on them to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones. I believe the Federal Government needs to show a greater commitment to the fire services. So, today, along with my colleague and friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, I rise to introduce the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act--or, FIRE bill. This bill is very simple. It authorizes, over five years, $5 billion in grants to local fire departments. These grants can be used for just about any purpose--training, equipment, hiring more firefighters, or education and prevention programs. A new office, established by this bill under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), would be responsible for distributing grants to local departments based on a competitive process, involving needs assessment. To ensure that the funding is not spent solely on brand new state-of-the-art fire trucks, it mandates that no more than 25% of the grant funding can be used to purchase new fire vehicles. Finally, it requires that at least 10% of the funds are used for fire prevention programs. Our bill is supported by the National Safe Kids Campaign, the International Association of Fire Fighters, International Association of Fire Chiefs, national Volunteer Fire Council, International Association of Arson Investigators, International Society of Fire Service Instructors, and the National Fire Protection Association. It is also a companion measure to legislation introduced in the House by Congressmen Pascrell and Weldon, where almost 200 members of the House of Representatives have cosponsored it. I am proud to introduce this bill with my friend from Connecticut and look forward to working to ensure that the federal government increases its commitment to the men and women who make up our local fire departments. We owe it to them. ______ By Mr. JEFFORDS: S. 1942. A bill to amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to establish grant programs to provide State pharmacy assistance programs and medication management programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. PHARMACEUTICAL AID FOR OLDER AMERICANS ACT Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, there has been considerable attention rightfully paid by our colleagues this year to the issue of providing prescription drug coverage for our older American citizens. Estimates of the number of older Americans without some form of added coverage for prescription drugs vary between a low of 16.7 percent to 50 percent. About 7.7 million Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes below 200 percent of poverty have no prescription drug coverage, despite some evidence indicating they are in poorer health than those beneficiaries with coverage. Those without added coverage for prescription benefits spend approximately 50 percent of their total income on out-of-pocket health care costs, and there are anecdotal reports that some elders forgo taking their prescribed medicines in order to have food to eat. Finally, there are econometric studies that conclude that a $1 increase in pharmaceutical expenditure is associated with a $3.65 reduction in hospital care expenditure. The problems posed by the lack of prescription drug coverage for the neediest elders is compounded by the well-documented effects of inappropriate drug use among the elderly. In 1995, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that inappropriate drug use among elders is acute and that elders were particularly susceptible to unintended, adverse drug events (ADEs), due in part to the natural aging process and also to the likelihood that they are taking multiple medications. One study of drug use by the elderly, done by the Vermont Program for Quality in Health Care, found that it was not uncommon for elders to be taking more than a dozen drugs at one time. In fact, the Vermont study actually documented one case in which ``a single individual received prescriptions for 71 different drugs in a single year, several of which probably should not have been taken in combination.'' The GAO report also cited studies showing that hospitalizations for elderly patients due to ADEs were six times greater than for the general population, with an estimated annual cost of $20 billion. However, a recent Journal of the American Medical Association article indicated that the level of ADEs could be reduced 66 percent, if a pharmacist participated in grand rounds. Clearly, more must be done to recognize the importance of medication management programs that ensure the quality of drug therapy, including patient evaluations, compliance assessments, and drug therapy reviews. We are all aware that prescription drug costs continue to grow at an alarming rate. Seniors are being forced to spend greater and greater portions of their fixed incomes on prescription drugs which they need to live. Research and development of prescription drugs have come a long way since Medicare was originally enacted in 1965. Today, drugs are just as important as hospital visits, and in many cases more important, and it just doesn't make sense for Medicare to reimburse hospitals for surgery but not to provide coverage for the drugs that might prevent surgery. We need to modernize the Medicare program so that it does not go bankrupt in the next 10 to 15 years, and at the same time we must ensure that any Medicare reform proposal we consider includes a prescription drug benefit that helps all seniors. Mr. President, I have already introduced two measures that will help our older citizens obtain the medicines they need and at prices they can afford. My first bill, S. 1462, the ``Personal Use Prescription Drug Importation Act of 1999,'' allows Americans of all ages to avail themselves of the lower prices for prescription medicines that are available in Canada. A second measure, S. 1725, the ``DrugGap Insurance for Seniors Act of 1999,'' would provide for a more comprehensive access to prescription drugs by Medicare beneficiaries through reform and modernization of the Medicare Supplemental, Medigap, program. Under this approach, all existing Medigap plans, and three new drug-only Medigap plans, would provide various levels of prescription drug benefits from which seniors could choose. And our neediest elders' needs would be supported through Federal contributions for the cost of their premiums. During the 1st Session of the 106th Congress, no fewer than eight bills have been introduced in the Senate to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries--with most proposals estimated to cost between $5 billion and $40 billion per year. While I'm hopeful that we will all work hard to include a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, I am also concerned that at the end of the Congress we may not be successful. That is why I am introducing a measure today, the ``Pharmaceutical Aid to Older Americans Act,'' which will serve as a backstop for our neediest elders. This program builds on State pharmacy assistance programs that are already in place, and it encourages States to begin them where they don't already exist. Fifteen States are cutting new and innovative paths for providing prescription drug coverage for their neediest citizens. Most of these programs are for elder citizens (more than half also cover people with disabilities), and cover a wide variety of drugs--though some are limited to certain drugs or conditions, some require cost sharing for prescription medicines, and some have annual enrollment fees or monthly premiums. As of 1997, these programs aided over 700,000 people. The [[Page S14706]] Pharmaceutical Aid to Older Americans Act is designed to assist States in their efforts to provide medicines and appropriate pharmacy counseling benefits for their neediest elders. This Act will strengthen the Older Americans Act by authorizing two discretionary grant programs, subject to appropriations, to fund State- based pharmaceutical assistance and medication management programs. Under this measure, States would develop models that work best for them and would have the latitude to design and implement innovative approaches for providing benefits to their neediest elders. States awarded grant money would agree to: match Federal funds with 30 percent new or existing State funds or in-kind contributions and not supplant current State expenditures with Federal funds. In-kind contributions counting toward the match requirement could include assistance from pharmaceutical companies and organization- and community-based pharmacies, thereby making this approach a truly public-private partnership. Each application for pharmaceutical assistance funds must include a medication management program that ensures the quality of drug therapies through patient evaluations, compliance assessments, and drug therapy reviews. Federal funds could be used to provide drug coverage benefits only to eligible beneficiaries, defined as Medicare beneficiaries with incomes up to 200 percent of poverty but without any other coverage for prescription drug benefits (States could expand eligibility with State resources). All senior citizens could utilize the medication management portion of the program. This is not government control of drug prices or price-fixing. The States can purchase pharmaceuticals from any willing seller, including pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmaceutical distributors, wholesalers, pharmacy benefit management firms (PBMs), and chain or local pharmacies, without any Federal requirement for wholesale prices or Medicaid-based rebates. In some instances, it's likely that States may be able to negotiate better purchasing prices than any of those set by some artificial, imposed ceiling. Finally, for those States that choose not to provide pharmaceutical benefits, the Act authorizes grants to States to create or support stand-alone Medication Management Programs that will involve the States in collaborative efforts with community, chain-based, and institutional pharmacists to implement medication management programs. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. President, I am fully committed to providing a prescription benefit for all our elders as we move forward on comprehensive reform of the Medicare program. I am equally committed to seeing that the Older Americans Act is reauthorized this Congress, and I will work diligently to get these jobs accomplished. However, if the latter effort succeeds and the former doesn't, then the Pharmaceutical Assistance for Older Americans Act will be in place to provide much-needed medicines for our neediest elders. I'm very pleased Mr. President, that this measure has received endorsement of two of the key advocacy organizations associated with the Older Americans Act, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging and the National Association of State Units on Aging. Note that these guardians of the aged support this measure, like me, if and only if we are unsuccessful in passing a prescription drug benefit for the Medicare program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and the text of these letters and this measure be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1942 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 ``Pharmaceutical Aid to Older Americans Act''. SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO OLDER AMERICANS ACT OF 1965. Part B of title IV of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3034 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``SEC. 429K. GRANTS FOR STATE PHARMACY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Assistant Secretary may award grants to States to provide and administer State pharmacy assistance programs. ``(b) Preference.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), the Assistant Secretary shall give preference to States that propose to develop and implement State pharmacy assistance programs, or to provide assistance to State pharmacy assistance programs in existence on the date of enactment of this section, that provide services for underserved populations or for populations residing in rural areas. ``(c) Use of Funds.--A State that receives a grant under subsection (a) shall use funds made available through the grant to-- ``(1) develop and implement a State pharmacy assistance program, or to provide assistance to a State pharmacy assistance program in existence on the date of enactment of this section; and ``(2) prepare and submit an evaluation to the Assistant Secretary on the implementation of, or provision of, or assistance to a program described in paragraph (1). ``(d) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), a State shall submit to the Assistant Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Assistant Secretary may require, including-- ``(1) a description of a State pharmacy assistance program that such State plans to develop and implement, including information on the anticipated number of individuals to be served, eligibility criteria of individuals to be served, such as the age and income level of such individuals, drugs to be covered by the program, and performance measures to be used to evaluate the program; or ``(2) a description of a State pharmacy assistance program in existence on the date of enactment of this section that such State plans to assist with funds received under subsection (a), including information on the number of individuals served, eligibility criteria of individuals served, such as the age and income level of such individuals, drugs covered by the program, and performance measures used to evaluate the program. ``(e) Minimum Amount.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), from the amount appropriated under subsection (l)(1) for each fiscal year, the Assistant Secretary shall award, to each eligible State, an amount that is not less than $250,000. ``(f) Duration of Grant.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), the Assistant Secretary shall award such grants for periods of 2 years. ``(g) Matching Requirement.--The Assistant Secretary shall not award a grant to a State under subsection (a) unless that State agrees that, with respect to the costs to be incurred by the State in carrying out the program for which the grant was awarded, the State will make available (directly or through donations from public or private entities) non- Federal contributions in an amount that is not less than 30 percent of Federal funds provided under the grant. ``(h) Supplement Not Supplant.--Funds made available under this section shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, any other Federal, State, or local funds expended by a State to provide the services for programs described in this section. ``(i) Evaluations and Report.-- ``(1) Program evaluations.--Not later than 6 months after the end of the period for which the grant is awarded under subsection (a), the State shall prepare an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs carried out with funds received under this section. Not later than 6 months after the end of such period, the State shall submit to the Assistant Secretary a report containing the results of the evaluation, in such form and containing such information as the Assistant Secretary may require. ``(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Assistant Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate a report that describes the effectiveness of the programs carried out with funds received under this section. ``(j) Sunset Provision.--This section shall not apply beginning on the date of enactment of legislation that provides comprehensive health care coverage for prescription drugs under the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) for all medicare beneficiaries. ``(k) Definitions.--In this section: ``(1) Medication management.--The term `medication management program' means a program of services for older individuals, including pharmacy counseling, medicine screening, or patient and health care provider education programs, that-- ``(A) provides information and counseling on the prescription drug purchases that are currently the most economical, and safe and effective; ``(B) provides services to minimize unnecessary or inappropriate use of prescription drugs; and ``(C) provides services to minimize adverse events due to unintended prescription drug-to-drug interactions. ``(2) State pharmacy assistance programs.--The term `State pharmacy assistance program' means a program that provides coverage for prescription drugs and medication management programs for individuals who-- ``(A) are not less than 65 years of age; [[Page S14707]] ``(B) are not eligible for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.); ``(C) are from families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the poverty line; and ``(D) have no coverage for prescription drugs other than coverage provided by a State pharmacy assistance program. ``(l) Authorization of Appropriations.-- ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005. ``(2) Reservation.--From the amount appropriated under paragraph (1), for each fiscal year, the Assistant Secretary shall reserve not less than 33.3 percent of such amount to enable States to assist State pharmacy assistance programs in existence on the date of enactment of this section. ``SEC. 429L. GRANTS FOR MEDICATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Assistant Secretary may award grants to State agencies to assist such agencies or area agencies on aging in providing and administering medication management programs. ``(b) Use of Funds.--A State agency or area agency on aging that receives funds through a grant awarded under subsection (a) shall use such funds to-- ``(1) develop and implement a medication management program, or to provide assistance to a medication management program in existence on the date of enactment of this section; and ``(2) prepare an evaluation on the implementation of or provision of assistance to a program described in paragraph (1), and, in the case of an area agency on aging, submit the evaluation to the appropriate State agency. ``(c) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), a State agency shall submit to the Assistant Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Assistant Secretary may require. ``(d) Minimum Amount.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), from the amount appropriated under subsection (j) for each fiscal year, the Assistant Secretary shall award, to each eligible State agency, an amount that is not less than $50,000. ``(e) Duration of Grant.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), the Assistant Secretary shall award such grants for a period of 2 years. ``(f) Matching Requirement.--The Assistant Secretary shall not award a grant to a State agency under subsection (a) unless that State agency agrees that, with respect to the costs to be incurred in carrying out programs for which the grant was awarded, the State agency will make available (directly or through donations from public or private entities) non-Federal contributions in an amount that is not less than 30 percent of Federal funds provided under the grant. ``(g) Supplement Not Supplant.--Funds made available under this section shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, any other Federal, State, or local funds expended by a State agency or area agency on aging to provide the services for programs described in this section. ``(h) Reports.-- ``(1) Report to assistant secretary.--Not later than 24 months after receipt of a grant under subsection (a), a State agency shall prepare and submit to the Assistant Secretary a report on the medication management programs carried out by the State agency or area agencies on aging in the State in such form and containing such information as the Assistant Secretary may require, including an analysis of the effectiveness of the programs. Such report shall in part be based on evaluations submitted under subsection (b)(2). ``(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 36 months after grants have been awarded under subsection (a), the Assistant Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate a report that describes the effectiveness of the programs carried out with funds received under this section. ``(i) Medication Management Programs.--In this section, the term `medication management program' means a program of services for older individuals, including pharmacy counseling, medicine screening, or patient and health care provider education programs, that-- ``(1) provides information and counseling on the prescription drug purchases that are currently the most economical, and safe and effective; ``(2) provides services to minimize unnecessary or inappropriate use of prescription drugs; and ``(3) provides services to minimize adverse events due to unintended prescription drug-to-drug interactions. ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.''. ____ National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, Washington, DC, November 9, 1999. Hon. James Jeffords, Chair, Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Jeffords: The National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (N4A) is pleased that you are introducing the Pharmaceutical Aid to Older Americans Act. We believe implementation of this Act could be an ideal interim measure until a Medicare prescription drug benefit is enacted. As you know, a fast-growing aging population coupled with escalating pharmaceutical costs makes the lack of prescription drug coverage one of the most pressing problems facing our nation's older Americans. The proposed State Pharmacy Assistance Program would allow states with existing benefit programs to expand services and provide a strong incentive for other states to implement a prescription drug program. Your legislative measure also goes far in addressing drug misuse, which is another escalating and dangerous problem. The proposed Medication Management Program would provide states with a financial base to implement a statewide information, education and counseling program that would significantly benefit the health and welfare of older adults. While N4A supports your proposal in concept, we have some specific questions about the implementation of these programs and concerns about the roles and responsibilities of Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) and Title IV Native American grantees. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you in the near future to address these concerns. Again, we applaud your efforts and look forward to working with you next session as you further define the proposal and shepherd it through the legislative process. Sincerely, Janice Jackson, Executive Director. ____ National Association of State Units on Aging, Washington, DC, November 10, 1999. Sean Donohue, U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Washington, DC. Dear Sean: Dan Quirk and I reviewed the draft you sent last week outlining Senator Jeffords' proposed Pharmaceutical Aid to Older Americans Act. Overall, the proposal to provide grants to states to support the development or expansion of pharmaceutical assistance programs and medication management programs is a good one, and using the existing infrastructure of the Older Americans Act makes good sense. The aging network is well suited to develop and administer these types of programs. Your proposal was well developed and thoughtful. Both programs would provide valuable assistance to older people who do not have any other prescription drug coverage available. The requirement for a 30-percent state match seems high, but allowing contributions to be ``in-kind'' will help states in that regard. The income eligibility level of 200- percent of the federal poverty level may conflict with the eligibility levels set by states in existing programs, though I haven't done an analysis of this yet. As with other programs under the Older Americans Act, if state-funded programs already exist that provide the same services, and eligibility or cost sharing requirements are at odds with the federal program, it requires states essentially to manage two different funding streams for the same program or set of services. As always, giving states the flexibility to blend federal funds with state funds to develop one program would decrease administrative expenses for the states and allow the money saved to be used for direct services. NASUA continues to support overall reform of the Medicare program that would provide a comprehensive prescription drug benefit to beneficiaries. In the meantime, state-funded programs that are being developed and which would be supported under this proposal continue to fill in the gaps for people with no coverage for prescription drugs. This proposal would strengthen the existing infrastructure, and perhaps could serve to support a prescription program under Medicare whenever it may be implemented in the future. We hope this proposal will generate some further interest in reauthorizing the Older Americans Act as soon as possible, hopefully before the end of the 106th Congress. We were very disappointed that reauthorization was stalled over long- standing disagreements over the Title V program. If there is anything NASUA can do to support Senator Jeffords proposal and reauthorization, please let me know. Thanks for the opportunity to review the Pharmaceutical Aid to Older Americans Act. Sincerely, Kathleen C. Konka, Policy Associate. ______ By Mrs. MURRAY: S. 1943. A bill to provide for an inexpensive book distribution program; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. first book distribution program act Mrs. MURRAY. Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on another topic I will be discussing with Chairman Jeffords as we move forward with reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I am introducing legislation today to fund an innovative book distribution [[Page S14708]] program targeted at giving low-income students their own ``first book.'' The ``First Book'' program is a non-profit private organization that has been tremendously successful gathering and distibuting new children's books to needy children throughout the nation. Key to the success of ``First Book'' are local boards called ``First Book Local Advisory Boards.'' Under my legislation, which would provide $5 million a year federal investment to such boards, will help them leverage millions more in funds from other sources. ``First Book'' has been successful because it is locally-driven, and reflects private industry initiative. ``First Book'' provides new books, which the program purchases from publishers at discount rates, to disadvantaged children and families primarily through tutoring, mentoring, and family literacy programs. This bill builds on successful efforts underway in communities across the country. It takes what has been a successful but very targeted program, and will increase its reach and effect into many more American communities. ``First Book'' makes a very real difference for disadvantaged children and their families, and with this investment, it will make a difference for thousands more. ______ By Mrs. MURRAY: S. 1944. A bill to provide national challenge grants for innovation in the education of homeless children and youth; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. stuart mc kinney homeless education improvement act Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on another topic I will be discussing with Chairman Jeffords as we move forward with reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The bill deals with an improvement I hope we can make in the Stuart McKinney Homeless Education program. While the McKinney program is relatively small, my hope is that we can greatly improve its effectiveness by recognizing and funding innovative approaches for serving homeless students. Chairman Jeffords and others have recognized that keeping a homeless child in their school district of origin is vital to their success. Children, especially homeless children, need continuity in their lives. Yet as a nation, we have not yet focused on funding the innovative practices that will show how this can be done and done effectively. In addition, there are chronic problems facing homeless children, such as the problems of trying to reach out to unaccompanied homeless youth, those young people who do not have parents or guardians with them in their homeless situation. Homeless preschoolers present another whole range of issues that many schools struggle to overcome. My legislation will provide $2 million each year in national competitive challenge grants for innovation in the education of homeless children and youth. We follow this same approach in education technology and other areas, and challenge grants are remarkably successful in sparking innovation and dissemination of new methods of instruction. Homeless students face many challenges, and schools face challenges in serving them. Creating a small challenge grant for homeless education is one necessary step we can take to help schools help these students succeed and achieve. ______ By Mr. LOTT: S. 1948. A bill to amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code, and the Communications Act of 1934, relating to copyright licensing and carriage of broadcast signals by satellite; to the Committee on the Judiciary. intellectual property and communications omnibus reform act of 1999 Mr. LOTT: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 1948--Section-by-Section Analysis Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the ``Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999.'' TITLE I--SATELLITE HOME VIEWER IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999 When Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewer Act in 1988, few Americans were familiar with satellite television. They typically resided in rural areas of the country where the only means of receiving television programming was through use of a large, backyard C-band satellite dish. Congress recognized the importance of providing these people with access to broadcast programming, and created a compulsory copyright license in the Satellite Home Viewer Act that enabled satellite carriers to easily license the copyrights to the broadcast programming that they retransmitted to their subscribers. The 1988 Act fostered a boom in the satellite television industry. Coupled with the development of high-powered satellite service, or DSS, which delivers programming to a satellite dish as small as 18 inches in diameter, the satellite industry now serves homes nationwide with a wide range of high quality programming. Satellite is no longer primarily a rural service, for it offers an attractive alternative to other providers of multichannel video programming; in particular, cable television. Because satellite can provide direct competition with the cable industry, it is in the public interest to ensure that satellite operates under a copyright framework that permits it to be an effective competitor. The compulsory copyright license created by the 1988 Act was limited to a five year period to enable Congress to consider its effectiveness and renew it where necessary. The license was renewed in 1994 for an additional five years, and amendments made that were intended to increase the enforcement of the network territorial restrictions of the compulsory license. Two-year transitional provisions were created to enable local network broadcasters to challenge satellite subscribers' receipt of satellite network service where the local network broadcaster had reason to believe that these subscribers received an adequate off-the-air signal from the broadcaster. The transitional provisions were minimally effective and caused much consumer confusion and anger regarding receipt of television network stations. The satellite license is slated to expire at the end of this year, requiring Congress to again consider the copyright licensing regime for satellite retransmissions of over-the- air television broadcast stations. In passing this legislation, the Conference Committee was guided by several principles. First, the Conference Committee believes that promotion of competition in the marketplace for delivery of multichannel video programming is an effective policy to reduce costs to consumers. To that end, it is important that the satellite industry be afforded a statutory scheme for licensing television broadcast programming similar to that of the cable industry. At the same time, the practical differences between the two industries must be recognized and accounted for. Second, the Conference Committee reasserts the importance of protecting and fostering the system of television networks as they relate to the concept of localism. It is well recognized that television broadcast stations provide valuable programming tailored to local needs, such as news, weather, special announcements and information related to local activities. To that end, the Committee has structured the copyright licensing regime for satellite to encourage and promote retransmissions by satellite of local television broadcast stations to subscribers who reside in the local markets of those stations. Third, perhaps most importantly, the Conference Committee is aware that in creating compulsory licenses, it is acting in derogation of the exclusive property rights granted by the Copyright Act to copyright holders, and that it therefore needs to act as narrowly as possible to minimize the effects of the government's intrusion on the broader market in which the affected property rights and industries operate. In this context, the broadcast television market has developed in such a way that copyright licensing practices in this area take into account the national network structure, which grants exclusive territorial rights to programming in a local market to local stations either directly or through affiliation agreements. The licenses granted in this legislation attempt to hew as closely to those arrangements as possible. For example, these arrangements are mirrored in the section 122 ``local-to-local'' license, which grants satellite carriers the right to retransmit local stations within the station's local market, and does not require a separate copyright payment because the works have already been licensed and paid for with respect to viewers in those local markets. By contrast, allowing the importation of distant or out-of-market network stations in derogation of the local stations' exclusive right--bought and paid for in market-negotiated arrangements--to show the works in question undermines those market arrangements. Therefore, the specific goal of the 119 license, which is to allow for a life-line network television service to those homes beyond the reach of their local television stations, must be met by only allowing distant network service to those homes which cannot receive the local network television stations. Hence, the ``unserved household'' limitation that has been in the license since its inception. The Committee is mindful and respectful of the [[Page S14709]] interrelationship between the communications policy of ``localism'' outlined above and property rights considerations in copyright law, and seeks a proper balance between the two. Finally, although the legislation promotes satellite retransmissions of local stations, the Conference Committee recognizes the continued need to monitor the effects of distant signal importation by satellite. To that end, the compulsory license for retransmission of distant signals is extended for a period of five years, to afford Congress the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness and continuing need for that license at the end of the five-year period. Section 1001. Short Title This title may be cited as the ``Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act.'' Section 1002. Limitations on Exclusive Rights; Secondary Transmissions by Satellite Carriers Within Local Markets The House and the Senate provisions were in most respects highly similar. The conference substitute generally follows the House approach, with the differences described here. Section 1002 of this Act creates a new statutory license, with no sunset provision, as a new section 122 of the Copyright Act of 1976. The new license authorizes the retransmission of television broadcast stations by satellite carriers to subscribers located within the local markets of those stations. Creation of a new statutory license for retransmission of local signals is necessary because the current section 119 license is limited to the retransmission of distance signals by satellite. The section 122 license allows satellite carriers for the first time to provide their subscribers with the television signals they want most: their local stations. A carrier may retransmit the signal of a network station (or superstation) to all subscribers who reside within the local market of that station, without regard to whether the subscriber resides in an ``unserved household.'' The term ``local market'' is defined in Section 119(j)(2), and generally refers to a station's Designated Market Area as defined by Nielsen. Because the section 122 license is permanent, subscribers may obtain their local television stations without fear that their local broadcast service may be turned off at a future date. In addition, satellite carriers may deliver local stations to commercial establishments as well as homes, as the cable industry does under its license. These amendments create parity and enhanced competition between the satellite and cable industries in the provision of local television broadcast stations. For a satellite carrier to be eligible for this license, this Act, following the House approach, provides both in new section 122(a) and in new section 122(d) that a carrier may use the new local-to-local license only if it is in full compliance with all applicable rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, including any requirements that the Commission may adopt by regulation concerning carriage of stations or programming exclusivity. These provisions are modeled on similar provisions in section 111, the terrestrial compulsory license. Failure to fully comply with Commission rules with respect to retransmission of one or more stations in the local market precludes the carrier from making use of the section 122 license. Put another way, the statutory license overrides the normal copyright scheme only to the extent that carriers strictly comply with the limits Congress has put on that license. Because terrestrial systems, such as cable, as a general rule do not pay any copyright royalty for local retransmissions of broadcast stations, the section 122 license does not require payment of any copyright royalty by satellite carriers for transmissions made in compliance with the requirements of section 122. By contrast, the section 119 statutory license for distant signals does require payment of royalties. In addition, the section 122 statutory license contains no ``unserved household'' limitation, while the section 119 license does contain that limitation. Satellite carriers are liable for copyright infringement, and subject to the full remedies of the Copyright Act, if they violate one or more of the following requirements of the section 122 license. First, satellite carriers may not in any way willfully alter the programming contained on a local broadcast station. Second, satellite carriers may not use the section 122 license to retransmit a television broadcast station to a subscriber located outside the local market of the station. Retransmission of a station to a subscriber located outside the station's local market is covered by section 119, and is permitted only when all conditions of that license are satisfied. Accordingly, satellite carriers are required to provide local broadcasters with accurate lists of the street addresses of their local-to-local subscribers so that broadcasters may verify that satellite carriers are making proper use of the license. The subscriber information supplied to broadcasters is for verification purposes only, and may not be used by broadcasters for any other reason. Any knowing provision of false information by a satellite carrier would, under section 122(d), bar use of the Section 122 license by the carrier engaging in such practices. The section 122 license contains remedial provisions parallel to those of Section 119, including a ``pattern or practice'' provision that requires termination of the Section 122 statutory license as to a particular satellite carrier if it engages in certain abuses of the license. Under this provision, just as in the statutory licenses codified in sections 111 and 119, a violation may be proven by showing willful activity, or simple delivery of the secondary transmission over a certain period of time. In addition to termination of service on a nationwide or local or regional basis, statutory damages are available up to $250,000 for each 6-month period during which the pattern or practice of violations was carried out. Satellite carriers have the burden of proving that they are not improperly making use of the section 122 license to serve subscribers outside the local markets of the television broadcast stations they are providing. The penalties created under this section parallel those under Section 119, and are to deter satellite carriers from providing signals to subscribers in violation of the licenses. The section 122 license is limited in geographic scope to service to locations in the United States, including any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States. In addition, section 122(j) makes clear that local retransmission of television broadcast stations to subscribers is governed solely by the section 122 license, and that no provision of the section 111 cable compulsory license should be interpreted to allow satellite carriers to make local retransmissions of television broadcast stations under that license. Likewise, no provision of the section 119 license (or any other law) should be interpreted as authorizing local-to-local retransmissions. As with all statutory licenses, these explicit limitations are consistent with the general rule that, because statutory licenses are in derogation of the exclusive rights granted under the Copyright Act, they should be interpreted narrowly. Section 1002(a) of this Act contains new standing provisions. Adopting the approach of the House bill, section 122(f)(1) of the Copyright Act is parallel to section 119(e), and ensures that local stations, in addition to any other parties that qualify under other standing provisions of the Act, will have the ability to sue for violations of section 122. New section 122(f)(2) of the Copyright Act enables a local television station that is not being carried by a satellite carrier in violation of the license to file a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court to enforce its rights. Section 1003. Extension of Effect of Amendments to Section 119 of Title 17, United States Code As in both the House bill and the Senate amendment, this Act extends the section 119 satellite statutory license for a period of five years by changing the expira