[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 63 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATFIELD:
  S. 2133. A bill to establish a Science Start Grant program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


              the science start grant program act of 1994

 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I regard the eight national goals 
we codified in the recent Goals 2000 legislation as very important 
challenges, challenges we must make every effort to meet in order to 
ensure the future of the Nation. All of these goals are interconnected. 
We cannot afford to lag behind in any and expect to attain the rest. At 
this time, it appears that U.S. student are lagging dangerously behind 
in mathematics and science achievement.
  With the passage of Goals 2000 and, ultimately, the ESEA 
reauthorization, we hope to reduce that gap. Yet, there are still 
glaring holes in our math and science educational program. This 
legislation is designed to fill one of those holes, one that was 
pointed out in the 1993 Review of Federal Education Programs in 
Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology to the Federal 
Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology. The 
report states:

       Unfortunately, many currently funded Federal programs for 
     children (e.g., Head Start) do not include science, 
     mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) education. 
     Young children are naturally curious and eager to understand 
     the world around them; early exposure to age-appropriate, 
     inquiry-based science and mathematics curricula provides the 
     foundation on which later understanding rests.
       Federal programs intended to provide additional support for 
     low-income children (e.g., Chapter I and Head Start) should 
     include rich early science--and mathematics-related 
     experiences among the basic criteria required for funding.

  Is it possible to provide these experiences to preschoolers. The 
answer is provided by a program conducted at Marylhurst College in 
Portland, OR, and that answer is a resounding Yes. This wonderful 
program is training Head Start teachers to use exciting, age-
appropriate math and science activities in their classes. Picture the 
effect these activities have on disadvantaged and minority youth. In 
all likelihood, this is the first chance these children have to relate 
math and science to their lives. The feedback from this 2-year-old 
program is phenomenal.
  Consider what two teachers, Sherry Wright and Debi Coffey, from the 
Albina Head Start program in Oregon had to say.

       After two years of using the knowledge we gained from the 
     Marylhurst College instructors, we truly feel confident in 
     using science everyday. Our children have learned how to 
     predict and discover the possible results to a problem. 
     Our children will take the science experiences that they 
     learned in Head Start with them through the rest of their 
     lives.

  Audrey Sylvia, who had no science classes at all before the 
Marylhurst College Head Start Summer Institute, expresses the result 
excitedly and succinctly. ``Now I am a science whiz.''
  My legislation provides for a competitive grant program to establish 
demonstration sites to acquaint the Head Start teachers with the 
stimulating processes involved in the inquiry approach. The teachers 
themselves must experience the excitement of hands-on activities in 
order to communicate that excitement to children. No more than 25 
percent of the funds can be used for the purchase of supplies necessary 
to carry out the activities.
  We simply cannot afford to miss the opportunity to replicate this 
concept throughout the Nation. This program is a positive investment in 
the lives of these disadvantaged children and will create a lifelong 
interest in math and science. That interest is critical to the future 
of the children and equally critical to the future of the 
Nation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Brown, Mr. Dole, 
        Mr. Lott, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Helms, Mr. Craig, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
        McConnell, and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 2134. A bill to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, 
and reduce welfare dependence; to the Committee on Finance.


                       welfare reform act of 1994

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH.
  Mr. President, today, I am announcing the introduction of a 
comprehensive welfare reform proposal that I have been working on with 
two of my distinguished colleagues and good friends, Senator Grassley 
of Iowa, and Senator Brown of Colorado.
  They have been true leaders for a long time in the endeavor for 
welfare reform, as well as in their pursuit of fiscal responsibility. I 
appreciate their leadership and support on this most important issue 
for our Nation.
  Mr. President, before coming to the Senate, I spent 45 years in the 
private sector meeting a payroll as a businessman and farmer. Every 
year, I watched as the Congress came into session and adjourned, 
leaving it more difficult for working taxpayers and businessmen to make 
ends meet because of excessive Government spending programs that have 
put our country on the path to an economic disaster.
  Out of all of the spending programs implemented by the Federal 
Government, I do not know of a group that has been a bigger failure 
than those collectively known as welfare.
  Since President Johnson declared war on poverty in 1965, almost 30 
years ago, the current price tag of that failed effort is now $5 
trillion and growing daily. In the past 5 years alone, total welfare 
spending has more than doubled. Government welfare programs, often well 
intended, have destroyed the initiative of whole generations of our 
citizens.
  Our Nation and the poor have gotten into the present fix because of a 
common sense principle, and that is: You get more of what you pay for. 
And for the last 30 years, the Federal Government has paid people not 
to work, the Federal Government has paid people to have children out of 
wedlock, and the Federal Government has paid people to remain 
unmarried.
  Mr. President, it does not make common sense or show good judgment 
what we have been doing.
  In 1992, Federal, State, and local spending on welfare programs was 
over $300 billion. Welfare programs are not currently subject to 
spending caps or to any discretionary review by the Congress. That 
means we end up spending vastly more than we can afford, based solely 
on the numbers generated by welfare bureaucrats encouraging welfare 
recipients.
  I propose we place a cap on the growth of welfare entitlement 
programs, and in so doing we must restrict the long-term aggregate 
growth of welfare spending to 3.5 percent per year. This would prevent 
welfare spending from growing faster than inflation.
  Some individual programs would be permitted to grow by more than 3.5 
percent per year, but others would have to grow less. But the total 
aggregate growth of the 76 welfare programs, Medicaid not included, 
must be held at or below 3.5 percent per year. It is estimated that 
this will save $80 billion over 5 years.
  President Clinton's welfare proposal will increase spending on 
welfare from $10 billion to $58 billion over the same period of time. 
Serious welfare reform means spending less money, not more money. I 
call on President Clinton to endorse this plan for placing a cap on 
welfare spending. If he truly wants to end welfare as we know it, as he 
has said many times, if he truly wants to reduce the dependency upon 
welfare, then the President should come forth and endorse this bill, 
which is true welfare reform and will do what he promised when he was 
campaigning, and that is end welfare as we have known it.
  Those 76 programs would be converted into a single discretionary 
block grant to the States. This would allow the States the authority to 
increase or decrease funding on particular programs, based upon that 
program's success in that particular State and how it best served that 
State.
  Mr. President, if we are going to begin a real reform of the system, 
we must address the root cause that has been fueling the welfare 
bureaucracy for 30 years, and that is illegitimacy. We must limit 
benefits to unwed teenage mothers in order to take away the current 
cash incentive to have more and more out-of-wedlock children at 
Government and taxpayers' expense.
  This bill will eliminate direct payments, except medical aid, to 
unmarried women under 21 years old who have children out of wedlock. 
All direct payments would be eliminated. All welfare money which would 
have gone directly to the unwed mother is converted into a block grant 
to the State.
  This would allow the States the opportunity to develop new and 
innovative programs to combat illegitimacy while taking away the cash 
incentive for young women to have more children out of wedlock. 
Currently, 30 percent of all American children are born to single 
mothers--30 percent. That is wrong. We need to promote and reward the 
institution of marriage. That is why this bill provides a tax credit to 
low-income married couples with children. It only makes common sense to 
expect that people who are being given a helping hand by the working 
people of America, the taxpayers, should be expected to at least do a 
day's work themselves.
  The bill establishes serious but sensible work requirements, while 
requiring far more welfare recipients to work than any other proposals. 
We target work requirements on those welfare recipients who have the 
least justification for being out of the labor force.
  All single, able-bodied adults without children who receive food 
stamps will be required to perform community service work. We would 
also require half of all single mothers receiving aid to families with 
dependent children benefits to work for their benefits with the 
priority going to women with children over age 5. This allows the 
children to reach school age before the mothers are required to work 
and thereby avoids the high cost of day care.
  Mr. President, the working taxpayers who struggle every day with no 
guarantee should not be expected to work to guarantee a way of life for 
those who choose not to work.
  As I have said many times before, we need workfare and not welfare in 
this country.
  Finally, the search for real welfare reform can only come from 
spending the taxpayers' money more wisely. The Faircloth-Grassley-Brown 
Real Welfare Reform Act of 1994 is the best means to that end.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of 
this dramatic welfare reform proposal with my colleagues Senators 
Faircloth and Brown.
  I do so recognizing that it is far-reaching and will be perceived by 
some as extreme. But let us face it Mr. President, extreme 
circumstances demand extreme measures in response if they are to be 
effective.
  Today I will address an issue that I do not usually talk about, which 
has been on my mind for some time.
  The latest social science studies demonstrate that the costs to our 
society of the moral decline since the 1960's have been devastating. 
Dr. Bill Bennett, former Secretary by Education, has brought attention 
to the decline in our Nation as a result of social and moral 
degeneration.
  Dr. Bennett published the ``Index of Leading Cultural Indicators,'' a 
compilation which attempts to demonstrate a data-based analysis of 
cultural issues. It is a statistical portrait from 1960 to the present 
of the moral, social, and behavioral conditions of modern American 
society.
  In a Wall Street Journal article of March 15, 1993, entitled 
``Quantifying America's Decline,'' Bennett cited some of the statistics 
from the index. While social spending in the United States since 1960 
has increased dramatically, the social indicators during the same 
period show overwhelming declines. For example, Bennett states that in 
the last 30 years, while there has been more than a fivefold increase 
in social spending by all levels of Government:

       There has been a 560% increase in violent crime; a 419% 
     increase in illegitimate births; a quadrupling in divorce 
     rates; in addition, there has been a tripling of the 
     percentage of children living in single-parent homes; more 
     than a 200% increase in the teen suicide rate; and a drop of 
     almost 80 points in SAT scores.

  He goes on to state that:

       Perhaps more than anything else, America's cultural decline 
     is evidence of a shift in the public's attitudes and beliefs. 
     * * * Our society now places less value than before on what 
     we owe to others as a matter of moral obligation; less value 
     on sacrifice as a moral good; less value on social conformity 
     and respectability; and less value on correctness and 
     restraint in matters of physical pleasure and sexuality.

  Mr. President, Mr. Bennett states, and I agree, that ``the good news 
is that what has been self-inflicted can be self-corrected.''
  With the devaluation of traditional views, we have seen a reciprocal 
increase in self-destructive behavior. This self-destructive behavior 
in turn increases the destruction of our families, our communities, and 
our Nation.
  William Raspberry addressed this concern in a Washington Post article 
of September 8, 1993. He remarked that:

       To a striking degree, the problems we worry most about--
     teen pregnancy, fatherless households, AIDS and other 
     sexually transmitted diseases, dropping out of school, infant 
     mortality, even many aspects of poverty--are the consequences 
     of inappropriate sexual behavior. * * * The hip response is 
     to redouble AIDS research, establish birth control clinics 
     (and nurseries) in the schools, distribute condoms and clean 
     needles and in general to teach kids ``what to do in the back 
     of the car.''

  He goes on to question that:

       It's all very well to try to save people from the 
     disastrous consequences of their behavior, but doesn't it 
     make sense to try to discourage some of the behavior in the 
     first place? * * * A part of the message must be directed not 
     just as the awful consequences but at the deadly behavior 
     itself.

  Mr. President, no one should think we are nuts when we promote 
abstinence and the traditional family. Rather, in the face of all this 
evidence, is this not nuts to deny the obvious?
  Traditional values were established to protect the sanctity of the 
marriage relationship and of the family. Judging from the observations 
made by Dr. Bennett and Mr. Raspberry, there is good reason in my view.
  Now I realize that in this day and age of sexual enlightenment, this 
kind of attitude has been considered victorian and anachronistic. 
Perhaps it no longer should be, but as Irving Berlin once stated, 
``There's an element of truth in every idea that lasts long enough to 
be called corny.''

  With these thoughts in mind, and given the aforementioned statistics, 
those who promote sexual morality are looking pretty good right now, in 
my view.
  Some might ask, ``why do you keep talking about morality issues in 
Congress, State legislatures and other forums of debate?''
  The answer is: Because our welfare policies to date have imposed an 
absence of morality upon our Nation. The traditional-minded among us 
are left to defend principles that history, current social trends, and 
religious teaching tell us are right.
  Let us look at some specific negative consequences of out-of-wedlock 
births on the child, the young mother and society.
  First, in 1965, the illegitimacy rate among black Americans stood at 
26 percent. Today that rate is 68 percent and climbing. The 
illegitimacy rate among white Americans has risen tenfold, from 2.29 
percent in 1960 to 22 percent today. The total of all out-of-wedlock 
births between 1970 and 1991 has risen from 10 to 30 percent. If the 
current rate continues, 50 percent of all births by the year 2015 will 
be out of wedlock.
  Second, 82 percent of illegitimate births among whites are to women 
with a high school education or less.
  Third, the younger the mother, the less likely she is to finish high 
school.
  Fourth, young women who have children before finishing high school 
are more likely to remain on welfare longer.
  Fifth, children born into welfare families are three times more 
likely to be on welfare when they reach adulthood.
  Sixth, young people from single parent or stepparent families are 2 
to 3 times more likely to have emotional or behavioral problems than 
those from intact families.
  Seventh, single-parent mothering is the single biggest contributor to 
low birth weight babies.
  Eighth, the probability for the children to experience low verbal 
cognitive attainment and experience child abuse and neglect are 
increased.
  Ninth, the absence of a father in the life of a child has a negative 
effect on school performance and peer adjustment.
  Tenth, young white women raised in a single parent family are 164 
percent more likely to have children as teenagers and 92 percent more 
likely to have their own marriages end in divorce.
  Eleventh, between 1985 and 1990, the public cost of teenaged births 
from AFDC, food stamps and Medicaid is estimated at $120 billion.
  Twelfth, the one parent family is six times more likely to be poor 
than the two parent family.
  Thirteenth, fathers of adolescent pregnancies tend to be more 
delinquent, 51 percent, and to have more psychological problems.
  Fourteenth, illegitimacy doubles the likelihood of young black men 
engaging in criminal activities and triples the likelihood if they live 
in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families.
  Fifteenth, the greater the incidence of single parent families in a 
neighborhood, the higher the violent crime and burglary.
  Mr. President, this is the legacy of our failed welfare policy. This 
is the legacy of Government as father. It tears down rather than builds 
up. However well-intentioned, the State cannot substitute for the 
family.
  In light of all of this evidence, how can we, as an intelligent 
Congress, not act to change public policy, to try to respond to this 
crisis? Especially the problem of out-of-wedlock births. How can we 
stand by and allow the trends to continue when we see clearly the utter 
destruction that has resulted?
  The sexual liberation movement of the 1960's has demonstrated itself 
to be socially and morally bankrupt. Its once-accepted practices are 
starting to be rightly perceived by the mainstream as an abject 
failure. It is time that our social institutions and our Nation as a 
whole return to the teaching that moral obligation, self-sacrifice, 
social conformity, and abstinence are truly virtues to be upheld and 
appreciated. It is time for our public policies to promote the family, 
rather than destroy it. Those who teach otherwise will have an 
increasingly hard sell to a growingly skeptical mainstream.
  Mr. President, these reasons are why we are introducing this bill 
today. We have got to address this dramatic problem.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (by request):
  S. 2135. A bill to authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
conduct pilot programs for delivering health care services in States 
which have statutorily reformed their health care systems; to the 
Committee on Veterans Affairs.


             va state health-care reform pilot programs act

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, I have today introduced, at the request of the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, S. 2135, a bill to authorize the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct pilot programs for delivering 
health care services in States which have statutorily reformed their 
health care systems. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs submitted this 
legislation to the President of the Senate by letter dated March 22, 
1994.
  My introduction of this measure is in keeping with the policy which I 
have adopted of generally introducing--so that there will be specific 
bills to which my colleagues and others may direct their attention and 
comments--all administration-proposed draft legislation referred to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Thus, I reserve the right to support or 
oppose the provisions of, as well as any amendment to, this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2135

       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 shall be cited as the ``VA State Health-Care 
     Reform Pilot Programs Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) The term ``Department'' means the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       (2) The term ``family'' means the spouse of a veteran or a 
     child of a veteran as those terms are defined in section 101 
     of title 38, United States Code.
       (3) The term ``pilot program'' means a program authorized 
     by section 5(a) of this Act.
       (4) The term ``reformed health-care system'' means a State 
     program which is statutorily established by a State that the 
     Secretary determines was established to assure that residents 
     of the State have access to health-care services.
       (5) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs.
       (6) The term ``veteran'' has meaning given such term in 
     section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code.

     SEC. 3. PILOT PROGRAMS AUTHORITY.

       (a) Authority To Conduct Programs.--In up to five States 
     that have reformed health-care systems, the Secretary may 
     conduct pilot programs under which the Department may provide 
     health care services, directly or by contract, to persons 
     identified in subsection (b) on the same or similar basis as 
     the State plan mandates for residents in the State.
       (b) Persons Eligible for Services Under Programs.--Persons 
     eligible to receive services under a pilot program are any 
     residents of the State in which the pilot program is being 
     conducted who are--
       (1) veterans;
       (2) individuals eligible for benefits under section 1713 of 
     title 38, United States Code; or
       (3) members of the family of any veteran who participates 
     in a pilot program.
       (c) Authority To Comply with State Health Plan 
     Requirements.--In conducting pilot programs, the Secretary 
     may comply with such requirements of State law applicable to 
     the establishment and operation of a health plan under a 
     State reform plan, or to functioning as a participant in, 
     member of, or contractor to, such a health plan, as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate for application to a 
     department or agency of the Federal Government.
       (d) Catchment Areas.--In conducting pilot programs in a 
     State, the Secretary may--
       (1) conduct the programs in some or all health care 
     facilities of the Department located in the State; and
       (2) establish such catchment areas within the State as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate.

     SEC. 4. CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION.

       (a) Condition on Establishment of Programs.-- The Secretary 
     may establish and operate a pilot program in a State only 
     after determining, based on such factors as the Secretary 
     considers relevant (including the factors referred to in 
     subsection (b)), that, in the absence of an enrollment option 
     through a Department plan in that State, the projected 
     workload in one or more Department health care facilities in 
     the State would decline to a level that--
       (1) would threaten to impair the capability of such 
     facilities to meet one or more assigned mission of such 
     facilities; or
       (2) would result in a deterioration in the quality of the 
     service delivered by such facilities to an extent that it 
     would not be reasonable to continue to provide needed 
     services in such facilities and satisfactory alternative 
     arrangements could not feasibly be provided.
       (b) Factors.--In making a determination under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall consider the following:
       (1) The relative universality of coverage provided to State 
     residents under the State reform plan.
       (2) The scope of benefits offered under the plan.
       (3) The extent of financing supporting the plan.
       (4) The extent to which the State may serve as a model for 
     the Department in determining how to compete with other 
     health care providers in other States when Congress enacts 
     National health care reform.
       (5) Such other matters as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       (c) Notice and Wait Requirement.--(1) The Secretary may 
     establish and operate a pilot program in a State not earlier 
     than 30 days after submitting to the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
     report on the pilot program.
       (2) Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include 
     the following:
       (A) The rationale for proposed participation in the State 
     reform plan.
       (B) A description of the extent to which applicable 
     provisions of State law specifically accommodate and 
     facilitate participation of the Department in the State 
     reform plan.
       (C) A detailed business plan for the participation of the 
     Department under the State reform plan.
       (D) A description of the actions the Secretary has taken to 
     consult with veterans on the proposed participation of the 
     Department in the State reform plan.
       (d) Requirement for Regulations.--The Secretary may operate 
     a pilot program in a State only after prescribing 
     implementing regulations.
       (e) Copayments.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     the Secretary shall require persons receiving health care 
     services under a pilot program to pay all premiums, 
     copayments, deductibles, and coinsurance amounts required by 
     State law in the State where the pilot program is undertaken.
       (2) The Secretary may not collect premiums, copayments, 
     deductibles, and coinsurance amounts under this subsection 
     from the following individuals:
       (A) Any veteran with a service-connected disability.
       (B) any veteran whose discharge or release from the active 
     military, naval or air service was for a disability incurred 
     or aggravated in the line of duty.
       (C) Any veteran who is in receipt of, or who, but for a 
     suspension pursuant to section 1151 of title 38, United 
     States Code (or both such a suspension and the receipt of 
     retired pay), would be entitled to disability compensation, 
     but only to the extent that such a veteran's continuing 
     eligibility for such care is provided for in the judgment or 
     settlement provided for in such section.
       (D) Any veteran who is a former prisoner of war.
       (E) Any veteran of the Mexican border period or World War 
     I.
       (F) Any veteran who is unable to defray the expenses of 
     necessary care as determined under section 1722(a) of title 
     38, United States Code.

     SEC. 5. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority to conduct pilot programs under this Act 
     shall expire on December 31, 1997.

     SEC. 6. FUNDING.

       (a) Revolving Fund.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States a revolving fund for conducting pilot 
     programs authorized by section 3(a).
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the revolving fund for fiscal years 
     1995, 1996, and 1997 such sums as may be necessary to carry 
     out the purposes of this Act.
       (c) Availability of Funds.--(1) Amounts in the revolving 
     fund established under subsection (a) shall be available 
     without fiscal year limitation for payment of all expenses 
     necessary to carry out the pilot programs, including--
       (A) expenses of furnishing medical care and services;
       (B) expenses of consumer surveys;
       (C) expenses of printing, marketing, and advertising 
     services (including contracts for such services); and
       (D) expenses for the acquisition, construction, repair, or 
     renovation of facilities (including the land on which 
     facilities are located or to be constructed).
       (2) Funds in the revolving fund shall not be available for 
     a major medical facility project, or a major medical facility 
     lease, under section 8104(a)(3) of title 38, United States 
     Code, unless specifically authorized by law.
       (d) Collection of Funds.--(1) The Secretary may recover or 
     collect funds which result from participation by the 
     Department in a pilot program authorized under section 3(a) 
     for care provided to veterans or their dependents. The 
     Secretary may recover or collect such funds (including 
     amounts received as premiums, copayments, deductibles or 
     third-party reimbursements) from an individual, another 
     agency or department of the Federal Government, an agency of 
     State or local government, or a health-care provider, health 
     care plan, insurer, or other entity.
       (2) The Secretary shall, in consultation with the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, estimate the 
     collection of funds to be received for services to be 
     provided to veterans by each Department facility 
     participating in a State pilot program during each fiscal 
     year. Such estimates shall be based upon and consistent with 
     the higher of--
       (A) the fiscal year baseline for third-party recoveries, 
     copayments, and other medical collections for the fiscal year 
     included in the budget submitted to Congress by the 
     President; or
       (B) the fiscal year baseline for such collections for the 
     fiscal year as reestimated by the Congressional Budget 
     Office.
       (3)(A) Amounts collected for services provided to 
     dependents shall be deposited in the revolving fund 
     established in subsection (a).
       (B) Amounts collected for services provided to veterans in 
     excess of the estimate determined under paragraph (2) shall 
     be deposited in the revolving fund established under 
     subsection (a).
       (C) An amount up to the estimate determined under paragraph 
     (2) shall be deposited in the Medical-Care Cost Recovery Fund 
     established under section 1729(g) of title 38, United States 
     Code.

     SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY.

       (a) Applicability of Notice and Wait Requirement.--The 
     Secretary may carry out any reorganization necessary to carry 
     out a pilot program authorized by section 3(a) without regard 
     to the provisions of section 510(b) of title 38, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Applicability of Other Provisions of Law.--The Director 
     of a Department health care facility participating in a pilot 
     project authorized by section 3(a) may enter into agreements 
     with health care plans, insurers, health care providers, or 
     with any other entity or individual to furnish or obtain any 
     health care resource, as that term is defined in section 8152 
     of title 38, United States Code, without regard to the 
     following:
       (1) Chapter 7 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 410 et. seq.).
       (2) Chapter 4 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.).
       (3) Subsections (b)(7), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of section 8 
     of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637), relating to 
     certificate of competency, notice, and sole sourcing.
       (4) Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76.
       (5) Section 8110(c) of title 38, United States Code, 
     relating to contracting out at Department medical facilities.
       (6) Subchapter V of chapter 35 of title 31, United States 
     Code, relating to Government Accounting Office protests.
       (7) Sections 3526 and 3702 of title 31, United States Code, 
     relating to jurisdiction over Government Accounting Office 
     protests.
       (8) Section 1491 of title 28, United States Code, relating 
     to protests to the United States Court of Federal Claims.
       (9) Section 702 of title 5, United States Code, and section 
     1346(2) of title 28, United States Code, relating to protests 
     to United States district courts.
       (10) Section 8125 of title 38, United States Code, relating 
     to local contracts for health care items.
       (11) The provisions of law appearing as sections 471 
     through 544 of title 40, United States Code, for purposes of 
     the proposal of the Law Revision Counsel of a codification of 
     Federal law, relating to the authority of the General 
     Services Administration over leasing and disposal of 
     property.
       (12) Section 8122(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, 
     relating to out-leasing by the Department.

     SEC. 8. MARKETING.

       The Secretary may carry out such promotional, advertising, 
     and marketing activities as the Secretary considers necessary 
     to effectively establish and operate a health plan pilot 
     program.

     SEC. 9. REPORTS.

       Not later than November 30 of each of 1995 through 1998, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
     report on the pilot programs carried out by the Secretary 
     under this Act.

     SEC. 10. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Benefits.--The Secretary shall provide the persons 
     referred to in section 3(b) with all benefits authorized to 
     be provided to such persons under title 38, United States 
     Code, in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable 
     to such persons and such benefits, notwithstanding that such 
     benefits are not provided under the pilot program.
       (b) Utilization of Other Department Facilities.--Department 
     facilities not participating in pilot programs shall continue 
     to furnish health care benefits in accordance with the 
     provisions of title 38, United States Code.
                                  ____

                                                     Department of


                                             Veterans Affairs,

                                                   March 22, 1994.
     Hon. Albert Gore, Jr.,
     President of the Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are transmitting a draft bill, ``To 
     authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct pilot 
     programs for delivering health-care services in states which 
     have statutorily reformed their health care systems.''
       The Nation is focused on the need for reform of our health 
     care system. Several months ago, the President submitted 
     legislation to the Congress which embodies his vision of a 
     system which will ensure all Americans of access to 
     affordable health care. His proposal would make crucial 
     improvements in the VA health care system. Congress is now 
     considering that legislation. However, many states are not 
     waiting for national health reform. They are proceeding to 
     enact their own reform measures now.
       The different state reform initiatives very considerably in 
     detail, but they include the common theme of increasing 
     access to care. Additionally, they often ensure that citizens 
     can receive a standard benefits package containing a wider 
     array of services than VA can now furnish to veterans. In 
     that situation, many veterans who now obtain care from VA 
     might choose to seek services from another provider. To 
     ensure that VA is able to continue providing veterans with 
     the care and services they need and deserve, VA must be 
     allowed to participate in the new health care marketplace 
     that is emerging in these states. Further, VA needs to 
     participate in these states so it can learn to compete in the 
     health care markets that will follow national health care 
     reform. This draft bill would allow VA to accomplish these 
     two objectives.
       The draft bill would authorize pilot programs in up to five 
     states under which VA would provide health care in accordance 
     with a state health care system. The pilot programs could 
     operate through December 31, 1997. Each pilot program would 
     furnish care to veterans, dependents, and those eligible for 
     CHAMPVA benefits who reside in such States on the same or 
     similar basis as care would be provided for other citizens 
     under State law. The Secretary could authorize a pilot in a 
     state only after determining that failure to do so would 
     result in a decline in VA workload to the extent that it 
     would threaten a facility's mission, or result in serious 
     deterioration in the quality of care provided.
       The draft bill also provides that under any pilot program, 
     veterans who now have high priority eligibility for care, 
     (so-called category A veterans) would have to be able to 
     receive care without incurring liability for any premium, 
     deductible, or copayment. At least 30 days before actually 
     initiating a program, the Secretary would have to submit a 
     report to the Congress fully describing how the pilots would 
     work. The Department would also have to promulgate 
     implementing regulations.
       To facilitate financial management of the pilot programs, 
     the bill would establish a revolving fund. The fund would 
     contain any amounts specifically appropriated to such fund, 
     any amounts recovered or collected by reason of the 
     furnishing of health care under a pilot program authorized by 
     this Act, and any funds collected under current provisions of 
     title 38, United States Code in excess of the current 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline or Office of Management 
     and Budget baselines--whichever is greater--for 
     reimbursements for medical care. Amounts in the fund would be 
     available until expended for all purposes of carrying out the 
     pilot programs, except they could not be used for major 
     facility construction or leasing.
       Other provisions in the bill would provide the Department 
     with greater administrative flexibility to allow it to 
     compete in the health care market. Most importantly, the bill 
     would exempt pilot sites from a number of specified laws and 
     government policies which restrict their ability to freely 
     procure goods and services. It would also ease current 
     restrictions on the Department's ability to reorganize its 
     facilities when necessary for the success of the pilot. 
     Finally, the draft bill contains specific authority for the 
     Department to conduct market and consumer surveys, and 
     promote and advertise health plans.
       We urge enactment of the proposed legislation as soon as 
     possible so that VA can continue to meet the needs of 
     veterans in those states which are reforming their health 
     care systems in advance of national reform.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the submission of this legislative proposal 
     to the Congress, and its enactment would be in accord with 
     the Program of the President.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Jesse Brown
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 2136. A bill to prohibit sponsorship of television violence by 
agencies of the Federal Government, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                    federal advertisement reform act

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have often said that Government 
should lead by example. Today I am introducing legislation to require 
the Federal Government to take a leadership role in addressing the 
issue of violence on television.
  Legislation considered by Congress thus far has been aimed at helping 
consumers make better-informed decisions about the shows they watch and 
the products they buy from companies that advertise on television. 
Senator Simon has also been effective in using the threat of 
legislation to spur action from broadcast and cable programmers. On 
Tuesday, the cable industry held a press conference detailing its 
progress on this matter.
  Meanwhile, agencies of the Federal Government continue to sponsor 
violent programming with their own advertising dollars. My bill would 
take the necessary first step--changing our own ways--before asking 
others to apply greater vigilance to the fight against television 
violence.
  Our market influence should not be overlooked. We're not talking 
about the public service announcements that are run at little or no 
cost to the Government. In 1992, Federal agencies--led by the Postal 
Service, the military, and Amtrak--spent over $110 million on 
television advertising.
  The question will be asked, How much of that money was spent 
supporting violent programming. The simple answer is, we don't know. 
That's why this legislation requires the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration to determine which shows contain a high 
degree to violence.
  What we do know about Government support for TV violence comes from 
Senator Dorgan, who has been a leader in the fight against television 
violence and, I am pleased to report, joins me a an original cosponsor 
of this bill.
  Senator Dorgan asked students at Concordia College last year to 
survey a week of television programming and determine which shows 
contained the most violence and who was advertising on those shows. The 
study found that the U.S. Army was one of the top 20 sponsors of prime-
time violence.
  This is an issue, Mr. President, that is on the minds of American 
families.
  In April, an eight grader from Davie, FL, visited my office. Fifteen-
year-old Michael Gittinger won a trip to Washington in a contest called 
Speak for Yourself. Contestants submitted copies of letters they had 
sent to their representatives in Congress about issues of concern to 
them.
  Michael was a State winner from Florida for his letter about violence 
in the media, written to Representative Peter Deutsch. I ask unanimous 
consent that Michael's letter be included in the Record, but I also 
would like to read a few lines from it.
  ``I am scared,'' Michael ways.
  ``It is sad when children watch TV and see a show where killing is 
okay because it's cool.''
  He writes, ``I think it is necessary for all of us to demand that the 
broadcast companies stop showing all these shows with too much violence 
. . . Concerned people could write advertisers asking them to stop 
sponsoring violent shows.''
  Mr. President, I agree with Michael. Each of us has a responsibility 
to change what is considered acceptable in American entertainment.
  Enactment of the bill I am introducing today will say to Michael and 
others concerned about television violence that the Federal Government 
has heard their message. We are no longer going to sponsor violent 
programming on the one hand while with the other we pen legislation 
forcing others to solve this problem. Our efforts will be 
comprehensive.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor this 
bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2136

       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 ``Federal Advertisement Reform 
     Act''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``Federal agency'' means each authority of 
     Government of the United States, whether or not it is within 
     or subject to review by another agency, including--
       (A) an executive agency, as defined by section 105 of title 
     5, United States Code; and
       (B) the United States Postal Service and the Postal Rate 
     Commission; and
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce, 
     acting through the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a 
     Federal agency may not advertise, or enter into a contract to 
     advertise, any product, program, or policy during any 
     television program identified as having a high degree of 
     violence pursuant to section 4.
       (b) Exceptions.--The identification of a television program 
     as containing a high degree of violence pursuant to section 4 
     shall not apply to an advertisement pursuant to--
       (1) any contract entered into prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act; or
       (2) any contract entered into prior to the date of 
     publication of such identification in the Federal Register.

     SEC. 4. IDENTIFICATION OF VIOLENT PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Program.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Administration'') shall establish a program to evaluate 
     television programs with respect to violent content contained 
     in the programs. The Administration shall establish the 
     program in accordance with this section.
       (b) Program Selection.--The Administration shall evaluate 
     each program on each of the national broadcast television 
     networks, or on cable television systems (in the case of 
     programs available to a substantial percentage of the 
     households that subscribe to cable television service 
     nationally). For each calendar year, the Administration shall 
     select at least 1 week during television sweeps, as defined 
     by the Secretary.
       (c) Identification of Program.--After evaluating the 
     television programs described in subsection (b), the 
     Administration shall identify programs that contain a high 
     degree of violence, as defined by the Secretary.
       (d) Publication.--The Secretary shall publish in the 
     Federal Register a list of the programs identified pursuant 
     to subsection (c) each calendar quarter.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2139. A bill to provide for the conservation, management, or study 
of certain rivers, parks, trails, and historic sites, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


             west virginia rivers conservation act of 1994

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to 
introduce the West Virginia Rivers Conservation Act. I believe this 
legislation will help protect and preserve some of West Virginia's most 
valuable natural resources for future generations, and enhance the 
State's growing tourism industry as well.
  As former Governor of West Virginia, and now as a U.S. Senator, I 
have aggressively pursued policies and legislation designed to increase 
tourism in my home State and the Nation. I believe that protection of 
West Virginia's important natural resources, like those contained in 
this bill, is vital to these efforts.
  Since the establishment of the New River Gorge National River, as a 
result of legislation introduced by the senior Senator from West 
Virginia, Robert C. Byrd, we have seen a greater appreciation of this 
precious resource. We have also seen an increase in economic benefits 
from the expanded tourism opportunities this area represents. In fact, 
over 700,000 visitors come to West Virginia and experience the New 
River each year.
  To build upon these efforts, along with my colleague in the House, 
Nick Rahall, I introduced the West Virginia National Interest River 
Conservation Act, which designated parts of the Gauley, Meadow, and 
Bluestone Rivers as components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 
This bill was signed into law in 1988.
  In the 102d Congress, I also joined Nick Rahall in introducing two 
other pieces of legislation to protect natural resources in West 
Virginia. The first added approximately 12,000 acres to the boundaries 
of the New River Gorge National River, the Gauley National Recreation 
Area, and the Bluestone Scenic River. The second required the study of 
the New River for possible designation as a component of the National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System and management under the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act.
  The legislation I am introducing today is a followup to the 
legislation I introduced last Congress, and would officially designate 
14.5 miles of the New River in West Virginia as a scenic river. This 
segment runs from the West Virginia-Virginia State line downstream to 
the Bluestone Lake in Summers County. The 11,191 acres within this 
proposed Scenic River segment are currently in Federal ownership and 
would continue to be managed as a wildlife management area under an 
existing agreement between the State of West Virginia and the Federal 
Government.
  This legislation also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
study an 11-mile segment of the Elk River, to determine its eligibility 
and suitability for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System, or as a unit of the National Park System as a national river or 
national recreation area.
  The bill adds Carnifex Ferry Battlefield State Park to within the 
boundary of the Gauley River National Recreation Area, and adds to the 
Bluestone Scenic River the portion of Pipestem State Park that is not 
currently within its boundaries. Both of these additions are proposed 
in order to achieve maximum economy and efficiency in administering the 
park unit. Nothing in this legislation would affect the continued 
ownership and management of the State park unit by the State.
  To increase the opportunities of citizens seeking greater and easier 
access to the Gauley and Bluestone Rivers, this bill does two things. 
First, it requires the National Park Service to produce a plan to 
provide access to the Gauley River for private boaters and fishers in 
the middle segment of the river. Second, the bill contains provisions 
to provide a public access point to the Bluestone River, to be located 
near Eads Mill. Currently, those wishing to enter the river must travel 
to Pipestem State Park, which is the only available public access 
point.
  The bill also includes an authorization for the National Park Service 
to construct a visitors center at Gauley Bridge. Located where the New 
River and Gauley River join to form the Kanawha River, I believe a 
visitors center in this location would help promote an increased public 
knowledge and appreciation of this area.
  Mr. President, I believe this legislation will enable West Virginia 
to continue to grow as a tourist destination. The areas covered in this 
bill offer canoeing, hiking, fishing, and some of the best whitewater 
rafting in the Nation. In addition, these areas abound with examples of 
West Virginia's coal heritage and Civil War history. Passage of this 
legislation will help ensure that these natural, recreational, and 
cultural resources are managed in a manner that will allow for their 
enjoyment now and by future generations.
  The House of Representatives has already passed this legislation, and 
given the importance of tourism and ecological preservation to West 
Virginia and the Nation, I ask that this legislation I am introducing 
today be given favorable consideration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2139

       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 ``West Virginia Rivers 
     Conservation Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER.

       Section 1101 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 460m-15) is amended by striking ``NERI-
     80,023, dated January 1987'' and inserting ``NERI-80,028, 
     dated January 1993''.

     SEC. 3. GAULEY RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA.

       Section 201(b) of the West Virginia National Interest River 
     Conservation Act of 1987 (16 U.S.C. 460ww(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``NRA-GR/20,000A and dated July 1987'' and inserting 
     ``GARI-80,001 and dated January 1993''.

     SEC. 4. BLUESTONE NATIONAL SCENIC RIVER.

       Section 3(a)(65) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1274(a)(65)) is amended by striking ``WSR-BLU/20,000, 
     and dated January 1987'' and inserting ``BLUE-80,004, and 
     dated January 1993''.

     SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF UPPER NEW RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``( ) Upper New River, West Virginia.--(A) The segment in 
     Summers County, West Virginia, from the West Virginia-
     Virginia State line downstream for approximately 14.5 miles 
     as depicted on the boundary map entitled `Upper New Wild and 
     Scenic River', numbered UPNE 80,000 and dated July 1993 to be 
     administered by the Secretary of the Interior as a scenic 
     river.
       ``(B) The acreage limitation set forth in subsection (b) 
     shall not apply to the segment designated under this 
     paragraph. Nothing in this Act shall preclude the improvement 
     of any existing road or right-of-way within the boundaries of 
     the segment designated under this paragraph.
       ``(C) Jurisdiction over all lands and improvements on such 
     lands owned by the United States within the boundaries of the 
     segment designated under this paragraph is hereby transferred 
     without reimbursement to the administrative jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary of the Interior, subject to the lease in effect 
     on the date of enactment of this paragraph (or renewed 
     thereafter) between the United States and the State of West 
     Virginia with respect to the Bluestone Wildlife Management 
     Area.
       ``(D) Nothing in this Act shall affect the management by 
     the State of West Virginia of hunting and fishing within the 
     segment designated under this paragraph. Nothing in this Act 
     shall affect or impair the management by the State of West 
     Virginia of other wildlife activities in the Bluestone 
     Wildlife Management Area to the extent permitted in the lease 
     agreement in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph. Upon request by the State of West Virginia, the 
     Secretary shall renew such lease agreement with the same 
     terms and conditions as contained in such lease agreement on 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph under which State 
     management shall be continued pursuant to such renewal. If 
     requested to do so by the State of West Virginia, or as 
     provided in the lease agreement, the Secretary may terminate 
     or modify the lease and assume administrative authority over 
     all or part of the areas concerned.
       ``(E) Nothing in the designation of the segment referred to 
     in this paragraph shall affect or impair the management of 
     the Bluestone project or the authority of any department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States to carry out 
     the purposes of the project.''.

     SEC. 6. DESIGNATION OF ELK RIVER AS A STUDY RIVER.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a 
     study of the segment of the Elk River, West Virginia, that is 
     reflected on the Webster Springs Quadrangle (West Virginia) 
     7.5 minute series topographic map, United States Geological 
     Survey, to determine its eligibility and suitability as 
     either--
       (1) a component of the national wild and scenic rivers 
     system;
       (2) a unit of the National Park System as a national river; 
     or
       (3) a unit of the National Park System as a national 
     recreation area.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     submit a report containing the results of the study conducted 
     pursuant to subsection (a) to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources of the Senate and to the Committee on 
     Natural Resources of the House of Representatives.
       (c) Effect on Management.--Nothing in this section shall 
     affect or impair the management of the Sutton project or the 
     authority of any department, agency, or instrumentality of 
     the United States to carry out the purposes of the project on 
     the date of enactment of this section.
       (d) Consultation.--In conducting the study required by this 
     section, the Secretary shall consult with the West Virginia 
     Division of Tourism and Parks and the West Virginia Division 
     of Environmental Protection.

     SEC. 7. CONSOLIDATED MANAGEMENT.

       To achieve the maximum economy and efficiency of operations 
     in the administration of the segment of the New River 
     designated by the amendment made by section 5, the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall consolidate offices and personnel 
     administering such segment with offices and personnel 
     administering the New River Gorge National River, the Gauley 
     River National Recreation Area, and the Bluestone National 
     Scenic River to the extent practicable, and shall utilize 
     facilities of the New River Gorge National River to the 
     extent practicable.

     SEC. 8. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       (a) New River Conforming Amendments.--Title XI of the 
     National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 460m-15 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 1117. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF OTHER LAW.

       ``(a) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 202(e)(1) of the 
     West Virginia National Interest River Conservation Act of 
     1987 (16 U.S.C. 460ww-1(e)(1)) shall apply to the New River 
     Gorge National River in the same manner and to the same 
     extent as such section applies to the Gauley River National 
     Recreation Area.
       ``(b) Remnant Lands.--The second sentence of section 203(a) 
     of the West Virginia National Interest River Conservation Act 
     of 1987 (16 U.S.C. 460ww-2(a)) shall apply to tracts of land 
     partially within the boundaries of the New River Gorge 
     National River in the same manner and to the same extent as 
     such sentence applies to tracts of land partially within the 
     Gauley River National Recreation Area.''.
       (b) Bluestone River Conforming Amendments.--Section 
     3(a)(65) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1274(a)(65)) is amended--
       (1) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``leases'' and 
     inserting ``the lease'';
       (2) in the seventh sentence, by striking ``such management 
     may be continued pursuant to renewal of such lease 
     agreement''; and
       (3) by striking the eighth sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``Upon request by the State of West Virginia so 
     requests, the Secretary shall renew such lease agreement with 
     the same terms and conditions as contained in such lease 
     agreement on the date of enactment of the West Virginia 
     Rivers Conservation Act of 1994 under which such State 
     management shall be continued pursuant to such renewal. Upon 
     request by the State of West Virginia, or as provided in such 
     lease agreement, the Secretary may terminate or modify the 
     lease and assume administrative authority over all or part of 
     the areas concerned.''.

     SEC. 9. GAULEY ACCESS.

       Section 202(e) of the West Virginia National Interest River 
     Conservation Act of 1987 (16 U.S.C. 460ww-1(e)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Access to River.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 
     submit a report to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate and to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives setting forth a 
     plan to provide river access for noncommercial recreational 
     users within the Gauley River National Recreation Area. The 
     plan shall provide that such access shall utilize existing 
     public roads and rights-of-way to the maximum extent feasible 
     and shall be limited to providing access for such 
     noncommercial users.''.

     SEC. 10. VISITOR CENTER.

       The Secretary of the Interior may construct a visitor 
     center and such other related facilities as may be necessary 
     to facilitate visitor understanding and enjoyment of the New 
     River Gorge National River and the Gauley River National 
     Recreation Area in the vicinity of the confluence of the New 
     River and Gauley River. Such center and related facilities 
     are authorized to be constructed at a site outside of the 
     boundary of the New River Gorge National River or the Gauley 
     River National Recreation Area unless a suitable site is 
     available within the boundaries of either unit.

     SEC. 11. EXTENSION.

       For a 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
     applicable to river segments designated for study for 
     potential addition to the wild and scenic rivers system under 
     section 5(b) of such Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(b)) shall apply to 
     the segments of the Bluestone and Meadow Rivers that were 
     found eligible in the studies completed by the National Park 
     Service in August 1983 but that were not designated by the 
     West Virginia National Interest River Conservation Act of 
     1987 (Public Law 100-534; 102 Stat. 2702) as part of the 
     Bluestone National Scenic River or as part of the Gauley 
     River National Recreation Area, as the case may be.

     SEC. 12. BLUESTONE RIVER PUBLIC ACCESS.

       Section 3(a)(65) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 
     U.S.C 1274(a)(65)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``In order to provide reasonable 
     public access and vehicle parking for public use and 
     enjoyment of the river designated by this paragraph, 
     consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the 
     natural and scenic values of such river, the Secretary may 
     negotiate a memorandum of understanding or cooperative 
     agreement, or acquire such lands or interests in such lands, 
     or both, with the consent of the owner as may be necessary to 
     allow public access to the Bluestone River and to provide, 
     outside the boundary of the scenic river, parking and related 
     facilities in the vicinity of the area known as Eads Mill.''.

     SEC. 13. GAULEY RIVER BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

       Section 205(c) of the West Virginia National Interest River 
     Conservation Act of 1987 (16 U.S.C 460ww-4(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``If project 
     construction is not commenced within the time required in 
     such license, or if such license is surrendered at any time, 
     such boundary modification shall cease to have any force and 
     effect.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Pell, Mr. Grassley, 
        Mr. Hatfield, and Mr. DeConcini):
  S. 2140. A bill to permit an individual to be treated by a health 
care practitioner with any method of medical treatment such individual 
requests, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                  the access to medical treatment act

 Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing, with 
Senators Harkin, Pell, Grassley, Hatfield, and DeConcini, the Access to 
Medical Treatment Act. This legislation will allow greater freedom of 
choice in the realm of medical treatments, and will make alternative 
treatments more available to the public.
  The Access to Medical Treatment Act represents a significant 
departure from current medical practice. It is grounded in the belief 
that our current health care delivery system actually discourages 
rather than encourages the development of alternative therapies that 
could effectively treat illnesses that often do not respond well, if at 
all, to conventional medicine. And it seeks to open up the system to 
such treatments under controlled conditions.
  As with any effort to change the status quo, questions have been 
raised about the practical effect of venturing into this new area of 
medicine. We have tried to address these concerns as we worked out the 
details of the bill, and I would like to talk in a moment about these 
important issues. First, however, I would like to relate how I became 
involved in the debate over alternative treatments, and share with my 
colleagues what was really the fundamental catalyst in my developing 
this legislation.
  Berkley Bedell is a former Congressman from the Sixth District of 
Iowa. As did quite a few of us in the Senate, I had the privilege of 
serving with Congressman Bedell for several years in the House of 
Representatives, where he acquired a well-deserved reputation for 
intellectual honesty and commitment to principle, as well as for 
tilting at the occasional windmill. In more than one instance, he 
appeared out of step with conventional opinion and subsequently proved 
to be ahead of his time.
  When Congressman Bedell left the House at the end of the 100th 
Congress, he was ill with Lyme disease. After trying several 
unsuccessful rounds of conventional treatment consisting of heavy doses 
of antibiotics, the cost of which ran in the thousands of dollars, he 
turned to an alternative treatment that he believes cured his disease. 
This treatment, which is actually a veterinary treatment, consisted on 
its most basic level of nothing more than drinking processed whey from 
a cow's milk. After approximately 2 months of taking regular doses of 
this processed whey, his symptoms disappeared. He estimates that the 
total cost for this alternative treatment was no more than a few 
hundred dollars.
  In spite of Congressman Bedell's amazing recovery, and the fact that 
this same treatment appeared to be effective in some other cases of 
Lyme disease, the treatment can no longer be administered because it 
has not gone through the FDA approval process. This is only one example 
of untold numbers of treatments that may prove beneficial but cannot be 
tried without enactment of this legislation.
  Shortly after he recovered from Lyme disease, Congressman Bedell 
discovered he had prostate cancer. Again, he found conventional 
treatments to be unsuccessful and turned to alternative medicine. This 
time he had to leave the country to obtain his treatment. But, once 
again, alternative therapy appears to have been successful thus far--he 
has been free of cancer for 4 years.
  Mr. President, there are any number of Berkley Bedells across the 
country who are desperate for cures that conventional medicine simply 
does not seem to be able to provide. Yet, the tragic fact is that most 
people do not have the financial means to seek out alternative 
treatments abroad.
  The Access to Medical Treatment Act attempts to address this 
situation. Its intent is twofold: First, to allow increased access to 
alternative treatments; and second, to allow increased opportunities 
for the trial of alternative treatments that may prove to be extremely 
effective.
  If these treatments are so effective, it will be asked, why can't 
they merely go through the standard FDA approval process?
  The answer is that the time and expense currently required to gain 
FDA approval of a treatment effectively precludes all but large 
pharmaceutical companies from undertaking such an arduous and costly 
endeavor. The heavy demands and requirements of the FDA approval 
process deny access to the potentially innovative contributions of 
individual practitioners, scientists, smaller companies, and others who 
do not have the financial resources to traverse the painstakingly 
detailed path to certification. The current system not only forgoes 
untold potential for exploring life-saving treatments, but also serves 
to prevent low-cost treatments from gaining access to the market.
  I want to emphasize, however, that I do not intend or anticipate that 
this legislation will dismantle the FDA, undermine its authority or 
appreciably change current medical practices. It does not attack the 
FDA or its approval process. It complements it.
  The FDA would remain solely responsible for protecting the health of 
the Nation from unsafe and impure drugs. The heavy demands and 
requirements placed upon treatments before they gain FDA approval are 
important, and I firmly believe that treatments receiving the Federal 
Government's stamp of approval should be proven safe and effective.
  The intent of my legislation is merely to extend freedom of choice to 
medical consumers under controlled situations. I believe that 
individuals, especially individuals who face life-threatening 
afflictions for which conventional treatments have proven ineffective, 
should have the option of trying an alternative treatment, so long as 
they have been informed of the nature of the treatment and are aware 
that it has not been approved by the FDA. This is a choice that is 
rightly left to the consumer, and not dictated by the Federal 
Government.
  The Access to Medical Treatment Act will allow individuals, under 
certain carefully circumscribed conditions, to obtain medical 
treatments that have not yet been approved by the FDA. The medical 
treatments prescribed under this bill cannot be dangerous. However, 
given the fact that the very intent of the bill is to allow treatments 
that have not necessarily undergone extensive testing, it is possible 
that a treatment administered under the bill could turn out to be a 
danger to the patient. In these cases, the treatment must be 
immediately reported to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and 
it cannot be utilized again.
  The bill requires full disclosure to the patient of the treatment's 
contents and potential side effects, and of the fact that it has not 
been proven safe and effective by the Federal Government. The patient 
is required to sign a written statement indicating that he or she had 
been made aware of this information.
  Finally, no claims can be made about the efficacy of a treatment 
except for claims made by the practitioner administering the treatment. 
Even in these limited cases, the claim may only take the form of an 
accurate and documented report made in a recognized journal or at a 
seminar, convention, or similar meeting. Furthermore, no practitioner 
may make a claim if he or she stands to gain financially as a result of 
that claim, outside of the reimbursement he or she might receive from 
an individual patient for administration of the treatment.
  No doubt the largest concern that has been voiced about my proposal 
relates to the issue of consumer protection. Individuals are often at 
their most vulnerable when they are in desperate need of medical 
treatment.
  It is absolutely critical that a proposal of this nature include 
strong protections to ensure that consumers are not subjected to 
charlatans who would prey on their misfortunes and fears for personal 
gain. The Access to Medical Treatment Act is armed with these 
protections.
  The bill requires that a treatment be administered by a properly 
licensed physician. It also narrowly defines who qualifies as a 
properly licensed physician. Most importantly, however, the bill 
strictly regulates the circumstances under which claims regarding the 
efficacy of a treatment can be made. It prohibits all advertising and 
labeling claims, and any other claims by individuals for whom the 
underlying intent of promoting the treatment might be linked to 
personal financial gain.
  What this means is that there can be no marketing of any treatment 
administered under this bill. Because marketing of a treatment is 
prohibited, I see very little incentive for anyone to try and use this 
bill as a bypass to the process of obtaining FDA approval. Also, 
because only properly licensed practitioners are able to make any 
claims at all about the efficacy of a treatment, I see very little room 
for so-called quack medicine. In short, if an individual or a company 
wants to make any profit off their product, utilizing this legislation 
will not be a preferable option.
  Mr. President, I fully realize that there will be significant debate 
over both the concept and content of this legislation. I welcome this 
debate. In a sense, it is my purpose for introducing the bill.
  What I am trying to do in this legislation is reconcile what many see 
as two irreconcilable interests--protection of consumers from 
unscrupulous charlatans and preservation of the consumer's freedom to 
choose alternative therapies. While I am as concerned as anyone about 
protecting the consumer, I also believe in an individual's right to 
choose to try a treatment that is not FDA-approved.
  If various pieces of my bill are changed or altered in the process of 
debate, that is fine with me. In fact, I welcome improvements, because 
it will show that these issues are being taken seriously. And I believe 
they should be taken seriously. They are important issues, especially 
at a time when we are looking to overhaul this Nation's health care 
system.
  The Access to Medical Treatment Act represents my best first attempt 
at cracking this paradox. I encourage debate and am open to changes. If 
this bill generates the serious discussion that I believe these issues 
merit, then I will have achieved my goal in introducing it. I welcome 
anyone who would like to join me in promoting this important debate to 
cosponsor this legislation.
  Mr. President, I firmly believe that our health care delivery system 
should be more receptive to alternate treatments. I am also sensitive 
to the fact that how we accomplish that goal has important 
ramifications that must be thoroughly explored. It is my hope that the 
Access to Medical Treatment Act, and the debate it engenders, will 
serve those ends.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2140

       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 ``Access to Medical Treatment 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Advertising or labeling claims.--The term ``advertising 
     or labeling claims'' means any representations made or 
     suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any 
     combination thereof with respect to treatment, including a 
     representation made or suggested by a label.
       (2) Danger.--The term ``danger'' means any serious negative 
     reaction that--
       (A) occurred as a result of a method of treatment;
       (B) would not otherwise have occurred; and
       (C) is more serious than reactions frequently experienced 
     with accepted treatments for the same or similar health 
     problems.
       (3) Device.--The term ``device'' has the same meaning given 
     such term in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)).
       (4) Drug.--The term ``drug'' has the same meaning given 
     such term in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)).
       (5) Food.--The term ``food'' has the same meaning given 
     such term in section 201(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f)).
       (6) Health care practitioner.--The term ``health care 
     practitioner'' means any properly licensed medical doctor, 
     osteopath, chiropractor, or naturopath.
       (7) Label.--The term ``label'' has the same meaning given 
     such term in section 201(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(k)).
       (8) Legal representative.--The term ``legal 
     representative'' means a parent or an individual who 
     qualifies as a legal guardian under State law.
       (9)  Treatment.--The term ``treatment'' means the use of 
     any food, drug, device, or procedure.

     SEC. 3. ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, and except as provided in subsection (b), an individual 
     shall be permitted to be treated by a health care 
     practitioner with any method of medical treatment that such 
     individual desires or the legal representative of such 
     individual authorizes if--
       (1) such practitioner agrees to treat such individual; and
       (2) the administration of such treatment falls within the 
     scope of the practice of such practitioner.
       (b) Treatment Requirements.--A health care practitioner may 
     provide any method of treatment to an individual described in 
     subsection (a) if--
       (1) there is no evidence that such treatment itself, when 
     taken as prescribed, is a danger to such individual;
       (2) in the case of an individual whose treatment is the 
     administration of a food, drug, or device that has not been 
     approved by the Food and Drug Administration--
       (A) such individual has been informed that such food, drug, 
     or device has not yet been approved or certified by the Food 
     and Drug Administration for use of the medical condition of 
     such individual; and
       (B) such food, drug, or device (or information accompanying 
     the administration of such food, drug, or device) contains 
     the following warning:
       ``WARNING: This food, drug, or device has not been proved 
     safe and effective by the Federal Government and any 
     individual who uses such food, drug, or device, does so at 
     his or her own risk.'';
       (3) such individual has been informed of the nature of the 
     treatment, including--
       (A) the contents of such treatment;
       (B) any reasonably foreseeable side effects that may result 
     from such treatment; and
       (C) the results of past applications of such treatment by 
     the health care practitioner and others;
       (4) except as provided in subsection (c), there have been 
     no claims, including advertising and labeling claims, made 
     with respect to the efficacy of such treatment; and
       (5) such individual--
       (A) has been provided a written statement that such 
     individual has been fully informed with respect to the 
     information described in paragraphs (1) through (4);
       (B) desires such treatment; and
       (C) signs such statement.
       (c) Claim Exceptions.--Subsection (b)(4) shall not apply to 
     an accurate and truthful reporting by a practitioner of the 
     results of the practitioner's administration of a treatment 
     in recognized journals or at seminars, conventions, or 
     similar meetings, if the only financial gain of such 
     practitioner with respect to such treatment is the payment 
     received from an individual or representative of such 
     individual for the administration of such treatment to such 
     individual.

     SEC. 4. REPORTING OF A DANGEROUS TREATMENT.

       If a practitioner, after administering such treatment, 
     discovers that the treatment itself (when taken as 
     prescribed) was a danger to the individual receiving the 
     treatment, the practitioner shall immediately report to the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services the nature of the 
     treatment, the results of such treatment, the complete 
     protocol of such treatment, and the source from which such 
     treatment or any part thereof was obtained.

     SEC. 5. TRANSPORTATION OF MEDICATION AND EQUIPMENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), a person may 
     introduce or deliver into interstate commerce medication or 
     equipment for use in accordance with this Act.

     SEC. 6. RESTRICTIONS ON LICENSING BOARDS.

       A licensing board that issues licenses to health care 
     practitioners may not deny, suspend, or revoke the license of 
     a health care practitioner solely because such practitioner 
     provides treatment to which section 3 applies.

     SEC. 7. PENALTY.

       A health care practitioner who violates any provisions 
     under this Act shall not be covered by the protections under 
     this Act and shall be subject to all other applicable laws 
     and regulations.
 Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I join my colleague, the 
distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, as cosponsor of 
his legislation Access to Medical Treatment Act, which he is 
introducing today. This bill will allow the development and utilization 
of alternative medical treatments that may help patients and have been 
shown to have no adverse effects. I firmly believe that we must allow 
patients, when they have been fully informed of the alternative 
treatments, to control their own fate and obtain treatments they 
believe are beneficial to their well-being.
  The FDA has made great strides toward reducing the time and expense 
involved in obtaining approval for medical treatments, devices and 
medications. Unfortunately, even with these improvements, medical 
consumers still have great dificulty in obtaining access to alternative 
health treatments. The proposal which we introduce today will not 
undermine nor reduce the role of FDA in assuring the effectiveness and 
efficacy of medical treatments and devices.
  In this bill, we have simply stated that a licensed health care 
practitioner may provide any method of medical treatment that the 
individual desires provided there is no evidence that the treatment is 
dangerous and that the patient has been fully informed of any side 
effects from the treatment.
  I am pleased that we have assured consumer safety protections within 
the bill. Those protections include informing the patient of the nature 
and foreseeable side effects of the treatment and the fact that FDA has 
not yet certified nor approved the device, food nor treatment. We have 
also prohibited any claims regarding efficacy from being made. We have 
also guaranteed consumers that reporting on the results or trials of 
any alternative treatments will be made by individuals who do not have 
any financial interest in the supply or administration of such 
treatment.
  This bill seeks to empower the patient and to restore patient control 
over decisions affecting his or her own health care. Patients will be 
able to avail themselves of alternative and non-conventional treatment 
if they believe such treatment is beneficial. Patient control is an 
essential component of good health care which we must strive to 
maintain and preserve in debate on this bill as well as the larger 
health care reform proposals which we will address later this summer. 
We must promote and enable people to have access to alternative health 
care if it is viewed as helpful to alleviating pain and suffering.
  Let me share with you a personal example of an alternative medical 
treatment which I found beneficial in the treament of recurring back 
and neck pain. Acupuncture treatments were initially viewed in this 
country as an alternative medical treatment without proven efficacy. In 
fact, the medical community in general frowned upon this approach to 
the treatment of pain. Despite the misgivings of established medicine, 
I pursued this treatment which I found very helpful in relieving my 
neck and back pain. I am glad that this treatment modality was 
available. Others should have access to such care if he or she 
determines such care is appropriate.
  I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation with my colleague, Senator 
Daschle, and urge expeditious and favorable consideration of this 
important step forward in opening the door a little wider to 
alternative medical treatments. Patients deserve to walk through that 
door if they so choose.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2141. A bill to provide a grant program to award grants to certain 
rural communities that provide emergency medical services for Federal-
aid highways, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


                 emergency medical services act of 1994

 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to 
authorize the Department of Transportation to establish a program 
providing grants to eligible rural communities which furnish emergency 
medical services to travelers on Federal-aid highways and which submit 
an application that is approved by the Secretary.
  Many small, rural communities are increasingly asked to bear the 
burden of providing life saving, emergency medical services to victims 
of accidents along our Nation's Federal highway system. These 
communities have done this willingly and remarkably well given their 
meager resources. However, for many communities the burden has become 
practically overwhelming.
  Mr. President, a recent accident along a stretch of U.S. Interstate 
40 provides a poignant example of the difficulty which many of our 
Nation's small communities face in providing EMS services to accident 
victims along Federal-aid highways. A family of seven was traveling in 
two separate vehicles on I-40 in route to a ski vacation in Taos, NM. 
The family was originally from Ireland but currently reside in Plano, 
TX. As the family was passing a semitrailer, a strong gust of wind 
pushed the vehicle off the highway and the driver lost control. The 
second family vehicle was following closely and also lost control. Both 
vehicles rolled and all but one of the family members were thrown from 
their vehicles.
  Guadalupe County Hospital, located in Santa Rosa, NM, a small town of 
2,200 people, responded to the accident scene. The nearest trauma 
center was located 120 miles away in Albuquerque, NM. Mr. President, 
because of the efforts of this small, rural hospital, I am happy to 
report that all seven members of the family survived the accident. This 
is an example of the importance of the service that our rural 
communities provide to victims of accidents along Federal-aid highways. 
Guadalupe County Hospital employees and volunteers provide this service 
under tremendous budgetary constraints that all too often leaves them 
with substandard equipment and inadequate funds to provide training.
  Mr. President, I believe that we have a responsibility to help our 
Nation's rural communities in their efforts to save lives and provide 
emergency medical service to our Federal highway system. And, I believe 
that this is a responsibility that is not being met by current Federal 
programs because our smallest communities often find that available 
resources are depleted long before they reach our small rural areas 
like Santa Rosa.
  That is why I am today introducing this legislation to provide 
communities with populations of 10,000 or less, and that are located at 
least 100 miles from the nearest urban center with a population of 
500,000, with grants to purchase ambulances and other emergency medical 
equipment, and to provide training to emergency medical personnel.
  I am pleased to support our Nation's rural communities in their 
mission to provide quality medical care to travelers from all States on 
our Federal highways.
  It is my hope that we will be able to move swiftly to pass this 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2141

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

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Community.--The term ``community'' means an 
     incorporated or unincorporated town or village (or equivalent 
     municipal entity) with a population of fewer than 10,000 
     individuals, as determined by the Bureau of the Census in the 
     census conducted by the Bureau in 1990.
       (2) Federal-aid highways.--The term ``Federal-aid 
     highways'' has the meaning provided the term in section 101 
     of title 23, United States Code.
       (3) Rural community.--The term ``rural community'' means a 
     community that is located at a distance of at least 100 miles 
     from an urban center.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       (5) Urban center.--The term ``urban center'' means a 
     municipality with a population of 500,000 or more 
     individuals, as determined by the Bureau of the Census in the 
     census conducted by the Bureau in 1990.

     SEC. 2. GRANTS TO RURAL COMMUNITIES FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a grant 
     program to provide grants to eligible rural communities that 
     provide services to Federal-aid highways and that submit an 
     application that is approved by the Secretary. An application 
     submitted under this subsection shall be in such form as the 
     Secretary may prescribe.
       (b) Eligible Rural Community.--A rural community that 
     expends not less than 25 percent of the funds allocated by 
     the community for emergency medical services for services 
     provided for medical emergencies that occur in the vicinity 
     of a Federal-aid highway shall be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section.
       (c) Eligible Costs.--A grant awarded under this section may 
     be used by an eligible rural community to--
       (1) purchase ambulances and other emergency medical 
     equipment; and
       (2) provide training to emergency medical personnel.
       (d) Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant awarded under 
     this section may not exceed $20,000.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Transportation $10,000,000 to carry out this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 2137. To designate certain National Forest lands in the State of 
Montana as wilderness, to release other National Forest lands in the 
State of Montana for multiple use management, and for other purposes; 
read the first time.


             montana national forest management act of 1994

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill that 
I hope brings us one critical step closer to resolving Montana's 
longstanding wilderness debate. It is the identical piece of 
legislation that my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns, and I agreed 
to, and which passed the Senate during the 102d Congress.
  The vast majority of Montanans simply want to see the wilderness 
debate concluded in a way that protects those wildlands that are truly 
special places. Unfortunately, there is a vocal minority that either 
wants to see every acre of land designated as wilderness, or believes 
that the vast majority of our wild country should be opened up to 
mining, oil and gas development, and logging. But this is not the 
Montana I know. Montanans want balance. They want the wilderness issue 
resolved in a way that protects both jobs and environment.
  For this reason, I believe the legislation that I am introducing is 
the best hope Montanans have of settling the wilderness debate. While 
this legislation is not perfect, it is reasonable. Both Senator Burns 
and I have sponsored it in the past, and it passed the Senate by an 
overwhelming margin in 1992.
  It is true that many environmental groups don't like it--it doesn't 
protect enough areas that many people believe merit wilderness 
designation. And it is true that industry doesn't like it--wilderness 
designations just don't allow for logging, mining, or oil and gas 
drilling. At this point, however, my focus is not on what it doesn't 
do, but rather on what it does. This bill allows us to pass a bill from 
the Senate and go to conference with the House; it allows us to break 
the 16-year stalemate; and it allows us to do what the people of 
Montana elected us to do--resolve the wilderness debate.
  I have spoken on several occasions over the past months to my 
colleague, Senator Burns, regarding my intention to introduce our 
compromise legislation. It is my sincere hope that Senator Burns will 
agree with me that prompt passage of this legislation is in the best 
interest of Montana and will join with me toward that end.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 1994.
     Hon. Conrad Burns,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Conrad: With the House close to passing Congressman 
     Williams' Montana wilderness bill, we now have an opportunity 
     to move Montana beyond its divisive issue by passing a bill 
     through the Senate. I believe Montana is best served when we 
     work together.
       As much as anything, wilderness is an issue where 
     reasonable Montanans can--and do--reach different 
     conclusions. Almost every Montanan engaged in this debate has 
     his or her ideal wilderness bill. Some want just about every 
     remaining roadless acre made wilderness. Others say they want 
     no more wilderness or, similar to the bill you intend to 
     introduce, the Forest Service recommendations of about 
     800,000 acres. I respect the sincerity of each of these 
     points of view. Yet I also believe the vast majority of our 
     fellow Montanans think it's time to pass a bill that 
     represents a compromise between uncompromising positions. 
     And, ultimately, by carefully considering the environmental 
     sensitivity, recreation and resource potential of each area, 
     it is possible to pass a bill that protects both jobs and the 
     environment.
       However, over the weekend, I was surprised to learn that 
     you plan to introduce a bill drafted by the Montana Resource 
     Providers Coalition. During the several times we have 
     discussed this issue in recent months, you failed to mention 
     this proposal or course of action. While this proposal 
     represents one side of the wilderness debate, it is not a 
     bill that can pass Congress. If there is one thing that more 
     than a decade of debate over Montana wilderness has taught 
     us, it is that an unbalanced bill--tilted too far toward 
     either preservation or development--has no chance of passage. 
     Moreover, I believe there are a number of Montanans on both 
     sides of this issue who want this issue settled and are 
     willing to accept a reasonable compromise if we are willing 
     to show the necessary leadership.
       I'm reminded of Arnold Bolle; one of the finest Montanans 
     I've ever known. You know that Arnie was a conservationist. 
     And he was also a principled and practical man who wanted, 
     perhaps more than anything, to live to see the Montana 
     wilderness issue resolved. Sadly, this dream never became a 
     reality. Shortly before he died, Arnie wrote me one last 
     letter. He asked that the wilderness issue be settled this 
     year. While Arnie wanted a number of wild areas protected, he 
     also came to see the wilderness issue as something that 
     pitted Montanan against Montanan. For both of these reasons, 
     for the good of Montana's land and people, he wanted a bill 
     passed. Up until the end, Arnie spoke his mind; he spoke the 
     kind of common sense that always abounds in Montana.
       Since you first came to the Senate, you have also often 
     spoken about the need to pass a wilderness bill. In 1992, we 
     worked together and we came close. While we reached agreement 
     here in the Senate, we both recognized that our agreement did 
     not--and could not--bind Congressmen Williams, Marlenee, or 
     any other member of the House of Representatives.
       Given all the trouble we've had passing a Montana 
     wilderness bill, I still think it's possible to get the job 
     done if we approach this issue with open minds and the ``can 
     do'' spirit that has seen Montana through good times and bad.
       Toward this end, as I have told you several times before, I 
     will soon introduce the 1991-92 Baucus-Burns compromise bill. 
     When we spoke recently, I urged you to join me in again 
     cosponsoring this legislation. While neither of us would call 
     it a perfect bill, it represents many hours of work and good 
     faith compromise between the two of us. With our mutual 
     support, it is also the one bill we know can pass the Senate. 
     Once this happens, it would then be sent to Conference with 
     the House. The final product, the Conference Report, will 
     almost certainly amount to a ``grand compromise'' between the 
     House and Senate bills.
       We both know folks are tired of the ``politics as usual'' 
     back in Washington. As a Republican and a Democrat, you and I 
     have an opportunity to prove we can put partisanship aside 
     and work together as Montanans for the good of Montana. The 
     proposal I've outlined is the most constructive way I can 
     think of to pass a Montana bill this year. I therefore ask 
     you to join me again as a cosponsor of the Baucus-Burns 
     bipartisan compromise.
       Think it over. I hope we can work together and get this job 
     done for Montana.
       With best personal regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                               Max Baucus.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S.J. RES. 193. A joint resolution to designate May 1995 ``Multiple 
Sclerosis Association of America Month''; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


            multiple sclerosis association of America month

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that 
will designate May, 1995 as ``Multiple Sclerosis Association of America 
Month.'' The Multiple Sclerosis Association of America has worked 
diligently and now is marking its 25th year of service to multiple 
sclerosis sufferers. There are over 500,000 individuals in the United 
States with MS or related neurological disorders and there is no cause, 
cure or prevention for MS. The goals of the Multiple Sclerosis 
Association of America are to enhance the quality of life for multiple 
sclerosis sufferers and their families and to promote, expand and 
encourage public awareness and knowledge as to the needs and day-to-day 
concerns of MS patients.
  Multiple Sclerosis Association of American members and their families 
are provided the following services free of charge: a toll-free 
hotline, peer counseling, patient educational information and referral, 
loan of therapeutic equipment, barrier-free housing facilities, 
bimonthly newsletter, and microclimate cooling through NASA technology.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in designation the month of May 
``Multiple Sclerosis Association America Month.'' This will be a great 
opportunity to support our constituents who are concerned about health 
care and working hard to deal with the effects of this illness.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                             S.J. Res. 193

       Whereas in 1995, the Multiple Sclerosis Association of 
     America will observe its 25th year of service to individuals 
     suffering from multiple sclerosis, and their families;
       Whereas over 500,000 individuals in the United States 
     suffer from multiple sclerosis or other neurological 
     disorders;
       Whereas no cause, cure, or prevention for multiple 
     sclerosis has yet been discovered;
       Whereas the goals of the Multiple Sclerosis Association of 
     America are to enhance the quality of life for multiple 
     sclerosis sufferers and their families, and to promote, 
     expand, and encourage public awareness and knowledge 
     regarding the needs and daily concerns of individuals 
     suffering from multiple sclerosis; and
       Whereas members of the Multiple Sclerosis Association of 
     America and their families are provided, free of charge, with 
     a toll-free hotline, peer counseling, educational 
     information, treatment referrals, loans of therapeutic 
     equipment, barrier-free housing facilities, a bimonthly 
     newsletter, and, through technology developed by the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, a protective suit 
     designed to cool the body temperature of individuals 
     suffering from multiple sclerosis in order to help restore 
     demyelinated nerves: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That--
       (1) May 1995 is designated ``Multiple Sclerosis Association 
     of America Month''; and
       (2) the President is authorized and requested to issue a 
     proclamation--
       (A) calling on the people of the United States to observe 
     May 1995 with appropriate ceremonies and activities; and
       (B) urging appropriate Federal agencies, and interested 
     organizations, groups, and individuals, whenever possible, to 
     promote the fact that the Multiple Sclerosis Association of 
     America provides free services which are designed to assist 
     individuals suffering from multiple sclerosis and their 
     families and to assist the Multiple Sclerosis Association of 
     America achieve its goal of providing a higher standard of 
     living for all Americans afflicted with multiple 
     sclerosis.
                                 ______

      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bradley, 
        Mr. Brown, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Burns, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
        Coats, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Dole, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Exon, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Glenn, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Graham, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. 
        Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnston, Mrs. 
        Kassebaum, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mathews, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
        McConnell, Mr. Metzenbaum, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Packwood, Mr. Pell, Mr. Pressler, 
        Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Roth, Mr. Sasser, Mr. 
        Simpson, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Warner, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. 
        Wofford):
  S.J. Res. 194. A joint resolution to designate the second week of 
August, 1994, and the second week of August, 1995, as ``National U.S. 
Seafood Week''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                       national u.s. seafood week

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I introduce a joint resolution to 
designate the second week of August each year as ``National U.S. 
Seafood Week.''
  Through this joint resolution we seek to increase the awareness of 
American consumers of the availability and superior quality of 
domestically produced seafood.
  The joint resolution also recognizes the importance of the commercial 
seafood industry--both the wild harvesting sector and aquaculture 
producers--in the United States.
  The U.S. seafood industry provides hundreds of thousands of jobs to 
fish harvesters, growers, processors, managers, biologists, ship 
builders and suppliers, shippers, carriers, marketing personnel, 
wholesale and retail sellers, grocers and others.
  Our domestic seafood industry produces roughly 10 billion pounds of 
seafood each year.
  American consumers need to be more aware of the vast diversity, 
quality and availability of U.S. seafood.
  Fresh seafood is commercially harvested from the oceans of every 
region of the country.
  I would be remiss not to mention that roughly 6 billion pounds of 
seafood is harvested each year off Alaska alone.
  Despite the availability of so much domestic seafood, American 
consumers eat only about 15 pounds annually.
  Our counterparts in other industrialized nations eat over 50 pounds 
of seafood each year.
  It is also unfortunate that a significant portion of the seafood 
Americans eat is imported.
  The United States is the largest exporter of seafood in the world, 
but we are also the second largest importer of foreign seafood 
products.
  We are shipping our superior quality U.S. seafood overseas, instead 
of eating it ourselves.
  The average American consumer is unknowingly purchasing foreign 
seafood when superior quality domestic seafood could be available.
  We hope this joint resolution will increase awareness and encourage 
Americans to consume more of a sustainable and healthy natural resource 
which is made in the U.S.A.
  We hope that the fishing industry, consumer groups, the Departments 
of Commerce and Agriculture, the President, and every American will 
help us to celebrate National U.S. Seafood Week this year and in years 
to come.
  We in the Congress and in the administration have recently spent 
considerable time working on a package to improve our health care 
system in the United States.
  Well, I would point out that the commercial fishing industry has been 
making a tremendous contribution to the health of Americans by 
providing a truly healthy protein source.
  In a time when we need to decrease the costs associated with health 
care, a healthy diet of seafood is both a prudent and tasty way for 
individuals to contribute.
  I am proud to work with and thank Senator Kerry for his work on this 
joint resolution, and the 55 of my colleagues in the Senate who have 
agreed to be original cosponsors of the bill.
  I would also like to thank two bright young Alaskans who helped in 
developing this joint resolution.
  Kristi O'Hara of Naknek, AK, an intern in my office earlier this 
year, first suggested the concept of a National U.S. Seafood Week to 
me; and
  Kristen Richmond of Anchorage, AK, who is part of my permanent staff, 
helped draft the joint resolution and worked to bring it to the 
attention of my colleagues in the Senate.
  Their generation and future generations will benefit the most if 
Americans--particularly young Americans--begin eating more seafood, and 
make seafood a lifelong habit.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                             S.J. Res. 194

       Whereas, seafood is an important natural resource 
     commercially harvested from the waters of every region of the 
     United States;
       Whereas, an increasing amount of seafood is also available 
     through United States aquaculture production;
       Whereas, the United States seafood industry provides 
     hundreds of thousands of jobs and includes fish harvesters, 
     growers, processors, managers, biologists, ship builders and 
     suppliers, shippers, carriers, marketing personnel, wholesale 
     and retail sellers, grocers and others;
       Whereas, the buying and consumption of American seafood 
     products boosts our national economy and supports the ``Made 
     in the USA'' theme;
       Whereas, seafood is one of the healthiest forms of protein, 
     and is low in calories, fat and cholesterol;
       Whereas, seafood is being processed in increasingly 
     creative forms to provide a vast market and a great variety 
     of products;
       Whereas, each United States citizen consumes an average of 
     15 pounds of seafood annually, while citizens of some other 
     industrialized fishing countries each consume over 50 pounds 
     of seafood annually;
       Whereas, the United States harvests and produces 10 billion 
     pounds of seafood annually;
       Whereas, the United States is the largest exporter of 
     seafood in the world, but also the second largest importer of 
     seafood, and domestic seafood which could be consumed by 
     United States citizens is being exported to other countries;
       Whereas, the average American consumer will unknowingly 
     purchase foreign seafood due to a lack of awareness about the 
     availability and superior quality of domestic seafood;
       Whereas, competition in the world seafood market has 
     increased, in part due to the subsidization of foreign 
     seafood industries, particularly foreign aquaculture;
       Whereas, domestic seafood is one of the nation's most 
     valuable sustainable natural resources; and
       Whereas, the United States could become a much healthier 
     nation simply by eating a better diet, including eating more 
     domestic seafood: Now, therefore be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     second week of August, 1994, and the second week of August, 
     1995, be designated as ``National U.S. Seafood Week.'' The 
     President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation 
     calling upon the people of the United States to observe the 
     week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I would like to express my 
support of the joint resolution that Senator Stevens and I are 
introducing designating the second week in August as ``National U.S. 
Seafood Week.'' This joint resolution would recognize the role of the 
United States commercial seafood industry--including both those who 
fish the open seas and aquaculture producers--in supplying its valuable 
products to American consumers. The seafood industry, an vital and 
historic component of the culture of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
nationwide also provides hundreds of thousands of jobs for fisherman, 
growers, processors, managers, biologists, shipbuilders and suppliers, 
shippers, carriers, marketing personnel, wholesale and retail sellers, 
grocers, restaurateurs, and others.
  National U.S. Seafood Week would increase the awareness of the 
important differences between domestic and imported seafood products. 
Many American consumers are not fully aware of the availability and 
superior quality of the roughly 10 billion pounds of U.S. seafood 
products produced each year by the domestic seafood industry.
  National U.S. Seafood Week will help to educate American consumers 
about the availability and high quality of domestic seafood, and to 
encourage the increased consumption of this valuable and nutritious 
natural resource. The awareness of the superiority of domestic products 
will help ensure that those involved in the harvesting, producing, 
processing and selling of U.S. seafood products will receive fair 
compensation for their efforts, which in turn, will help guarantee the 
sustainable harvesting and production of these precious resources.
  I urge the speedy passage of the joint resolution.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DeCONCINI (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Reid, Mr. Wofford, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
        Moynihan, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Heflin, 
        Mr. Glenn, Mr. Ford, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
        Kohl, Mr. Smith, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
        D'Amato, Mr. Levin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Wellstone, 
        Mr. Mathews, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Nunn, Mr. Bradley, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Graham, Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Metzenbaum, Mr. 
        Dole, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Lott, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
        McCain, Mr. Specter, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Domenici):
  S.J. Res. 195. A joint resolution to designate August 1, 1994, as 
``Helsinki Human Rights Day''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                       helsinki human rights day

 Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Commission on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki 
Commission, I am pleased to introduce today, together with several of 
my colleagues, a joint resolution to authorize and request the 
President to designate August 1, 1994, as ``Helsinki Human Rights 
Day.''
  On August 1, 1975, the leaders of 35 countries gathered in Helsinki 
to sign the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in 
Europe [CSCE], also referred to as the Helsinki Accords. This agreement 
launched a dynamic process which has contributed to the positive 
changes which have occurred in Europe in recent years. The Final Act, 
the seminal document of this process, covers major aspects of East-West 
relations, including military security, trade, economic cooperation, 
environment, scientific and cultural exchanges, as well as human rights 
and fundamental freedoms.

  Membership in CSCE has grown significantly in light of sweeping 
political developments in Europe, including the demise of the Soviet 
Union and the former Yugoslavia. Today, 53 countries are participants 
in the CSCE process--51 Eurasian states, Canada and the United States.
  Human rights remains the cornerstone of the CSCE process. The 
participating States have recognized that human rights and fundamental 
freedoms are the birthright of all human beings and that the protection 
and promotion of these rights is the first responsibility of 
government. The CSCE remains firmly committed to human rights, 
democracy and the rule of law, and has encouraged peaceful change 
through free and fair elections.
  Over the years, the CSCE has inspired individuals and groups to speak 
out on behalf of those denied their human rights. It has also served as 
a useful forum in which individual human rights cases could be raised. 
Hundreds of political prisoners have been released and thousands of 
families reunited as a result of the pressure brought to bear within 
the framework of the Helsinki process. It has also been successful in 
chipping away at the barriers which artificially divided Europe for 
decades. We can be proud of our record of strong support for the CSCE.
  Today, Europe is attempting to liberate itself from the legacy of the 
past, though problems persist. Of particular concern is the continued 
war of aggression and genocide waged against the people of Bosnia-
Herzegovia. In addition, several of the newly independent states of the 
former Soviet Union, as well as tensions in Russia's relations with a 
number of neighboring states, are also cause for concern. The CSCE can 
play an instrumental role in addressing these issues and others which 
have serious consequences for the future of Europe. It can also further 
contribute to the political and economic transition taking place in 
much of East-Central Europe and the former Soviet Union
  The resolution we introduce today reaffirms our commitment to the 
Helsinki Accords and the vital importance of respect for human rights 
and fundamental freedoms in advancing security and cooperation in 
Europe.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this 
resolution and ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                             S.J. Res. 195

       Whereas August 1, 1994, is the 19th anniversary of the 
     signing of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) (hereafter referred to as the 
     ``Helsinki Accords'');
       Whereas the participating States have declared their 
     determination to fully respect and apply the Helsinki 
     Principles Guiding Relations among participating States, 
     including respect for human rights, the territorial integrity 
     of states, and the inviolability of frontiers;
       Whereas the participating States have declared that ``the 
     protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental 
     freedoms and the strengthening of democratic institutions 
     continue to be a vital basis for our comprehensive 
     security'';
       Whereas the participating States have declared that 
     ``respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, 
     including the rights of persons belonging to national 
     minorities, democracy, the rule of law, economic liberty, 
     social justice, and environmental responsibility are our 
     common aims'';
       Whereas the participating States have acknowledged that 
     ``there is still much work to be done in building democratic 
     and pluralistic societies, where diversity is fully protected 
     and respected in practice'';
       Whereas the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina has resulted in 
     organized, systematic, and premeditated war crimes and 
     genocide and has threatened stability and security in Europe;
       Whereas ethnic tensions, civil unrest, and egregious human 
     rights abuses in several of he recently admitted CSCE States 
     continue to result in significant violations of CSCE 
     commitments; and
       Whereas the CSCE has contributed to positive developments 
     in Europe by promoting and furthering respect for the human 
     rights and fundamental freedoms of all individuals and groups 
     and provides an appropriate framework for the further 
     development of such rights and freedoms and genuine security 
     and cooperation among the participating States: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS DAY.

       (a) Designation.--August 1, 1994, the 19th anniversary of 
     the signing of the Final Act of the Conference on Security 
     and Cooperation in Europe, is designated as ``Helsinki Human 
     Rights Day''.
       (b) Proclamation.--The President is authorized and 
     requested to issue a proclamation reasserting America's 
     commitment to full implementation of the human rights and 
     humanitarian provisions of the Helsinki Accords, urging all 
     signatory States to abide by their obligations under the 
     Helsinki Accords, and encouraging the people of the United 
     States to join the President and Congress in observance of 
     Helsinki Human Rights Day with appropriate programs, 
     ceremonies, and activities.
       (c) Human Rights.--The President is requested to convey to 
     all signatories of the Helsinki Accords that respect for 
     human rights and fundamental freedoms continues to be a vital 
     element of further progress in the ongoing Helsinki process; 
     and to develop new proposals to advance the human rights 
     objectives of the Helsinki process, and in so doing to 
     address the major problems that remain.

     SEC. 2. TRANSMITTAL.

       The Secretary of State is directed to transmit copies of 
     this joint resolution to the Ambassadors or representatives 
     to the United States of the other 52 Helsinki signatory 
     States.

                          ____________________