[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 2245. A bill to provide additional methods of recovering costs to 
the Federal Government health care programs attributable to tobacco-
related illnesses and diseases, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


        medicare and medicare third party liability act of 1994

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the American taxpayers are 
sitting on a fiscal time bomb right now--it is ticking loudly and will 
soon explode.
  The time bomb is tobacco-related illnesses. The Columbia University 
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse--also known as CASA--has 
estimated that tobacco-related illnesses will cost the Medicare Program 
$800 billion over the next 20 years. Do you know who is going to pick 
up the tab for this? The American taxpayers.
  CASA estimates that tobacco-related illnesses cost Medicare $16 
billion and Medicaid $3 billion per year. But these are conservative 
estimates because they only cover inpatient hospital costs. CASA 
believes that these costs will only grow in the next 20 years, when 
more and more lifetime smokers become eligible for medicare as they 
retire.
  This is an enormous bill that the American taxpayers will have to pay 
for. At the same time, the tobacco companies will continue to make 
large profits.
  This presents the Federal Government with a stark choice.
  Should American taxpayers pay the bill?
  Or should the tobacco companies pay their fair share?
  Currently, Medicare and Medicaid are funded by a portion of the 
Social Security payroll tax and by general tax revenues. The taxpayers 
are paying their share. There is also a tobacco tax--which hopefully 
will be increased substantially to pay for health care reform--that 
means smokers pay their share. Everyone pays for costs of tobacco use 
except the tobacco companies. This is unfair.
  That is why I am introducing the Medicare and Medicaid Third Party 
Liability Act along with Senator Harkin. This legislation is modeled 
after a similar Florida law that was recently enacted.
  This bill will do the following:
  Allow the Federal Government to sue the tobacco companies to recoup 
Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and other health expenditures tobacco-related 
illnesses.
  Let the Federal Government sue the tobacco companies using statistics 
on the health care costs of tobacco use.
  Allow the Federal Government to obtain awards from the tobacco 
companies based on each company's share of the U.S. market.
  If the Federal Government is successful in collecting Medicaid 
expenses, it will return the appropriate portion of these funds to each 
State.
  This legislation, by itself, does not compel the tobacco companies to 
pay any specified amount. It simply lets the Federal Government file a 
sort of class action suit--on behalf of the taxpayers--to help pay the 
health care costs of tobacco use. In order for the Government to 
receive payment, it must win its case in Federal Court under the normal 
rules of civil procedure.
  The tobacco companies say we are picking on them. They complain we 
should look at other products like alcohol, caffeine, or foods that 
contain saturated fats. But tobacco is different. It is the only 
product that when used as intended causes illness and death.
  Every day we read more stories about how the tobacco companies have 
known for many years that their product was dangerous--but they chose 
to hide their findings from the public. In addition, as the FDA 
Commissioner stated 3 days ago at a House hearing, the tobacco 
companies manipulate the nicotine in cigarettes to addict smokers.
  Given this track record of deception and misinformation, why should 
we let the tobacco companies off the hook for all the health care costs 
that their products create? Why should the taxpayers be solely liable 
for these costs?
  Today, we are scheduled to take up a product liability bill that 
would seek to limit liability for manufactured products. It is our 
intention to offer this legislation as an amendment to that bill--to 
limit the taxpayers' liability--so that we are not asked to pay for all 
of the billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid bills that are 
coming our way.
  It's time for the U.S. taxpayers to get their money back--And make 
the tobacco companies pay their fair share.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2245

       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 ``Medicare and Medicaid Third 
     Party Liability Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) illnesses and diseases that result from the use of 
     tobacco products cost Federal Government health care programs 
     billions of dollars, including at least $16,000,000,000 in 
     the medicare program and $3,000,000,000 in the medicaid 
     program for inpatient hospital services in fiscal year 1994;
       (2) over the next 20 years, such illnesses and diseases 
     will cost the medicare trust funds at least $800,000,000,000;
       (3) in April 1994, the trustees of the medicare trust funds 
     concluded that such funds may be insolvent in 7 years, with 
     $128,000,000,000 of expenditures due to such illnesses and 
     diseases;
       (4) recent discoveries, including documents, patents and 
     patent applications, and testimony, have shown that--
       (A) the tobacco industry has known for years that the 
     nicotine in cigarettes is addictive,
       (B) the industry has attempted both to conceal this 
     information from the public and the Government and to 
     manipulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes, and
       (C) it is possible to manufacture cigarettes which are far 
     less dangerous to consumers;
       (5) more than 36 percent of medicare recipients are former 
     smokers and 20 percent are current smokers;
       (6) approximately 43 percent of medicaid recipients smoke, 
     compared to 26 percent of the general public; and
       (7) the medicare population is much more at risk of 
     contacting illnesses and diseases that result from the use of 
     tobacco products than younger smokers, because such 
     population has smoked longer;
       (8) legal scholars and courts are increasingly agreeing 
     that it is appropriate to use statistical evidence to prove 
     causation; and
       (9) in view of the large number of Americans killed, 
     disabled, or otherwise injured each year as a result of 
     smoking cigarettes, the addictiveness of the nicotine in 
     cigarettes, and the absence of any significant benefits to 
     society from smoking, cigarettes are an unreasonably 
     dangerous product and cigarette manufacturers are engaged in 
     abnormally dangerous activities.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to allow the 
     American taxpayers to recoup billions of dollars in Federal 
     Government health care funds spent on tobacco related 
     illnesses and diseases.

     SEC. 3. CLASS ACTION TO RECOVER COSTS TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 
                   HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS OF TOBACCO RELATED 
                   ILLNESSES AND DISEASES.

       (a) In General.--(1) With respect to payments made under 
     any applicable Federal Government health care program to or 
     on behalf of more than one recipient with a disease, illness, 
     condition, or complication caused, in whole or in part, by 
     the use of tobacco products, the Attorney General of the 
     United States may seek recovery for such payments from third 
     parties (or any successors to such third parties) that 
     manufacture tobacco products. The Attorney General (after 
     consultation with the appropriate Secretaries who administer 
     such programs) may bring an action in the name of the United 
     States in United States district court to recover such 
     payments made to or on behalf of all such recipients in one 
     proceeding.
       (2) Any action to enforce the rights of the Attorney 
     General under this section with respect to any payment 
     described in paragraph (1) shall be commenced within 5 years 
     of such payment.
       (3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``applicable 
     Federal Government health care program'' includes--
       (A) the medicare program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act;
       (B) the medicaid program under title XIX of such Act;
       (C) the veterans health care program under title 38, United 
     States Code; and
       (D) any other similar Federal health care program.
       (b) Notice Under the Class Action.--(1) In any action 
     brought under this section, no notice to recipients described 
     in subsection (a)(1) is required, and such recipients shall 
     have no right to become a party to such action. Such action 
     is independent of any rights or causes of action of such 
     recipients.
       (2) In any such action in which the number of recipients 
     described in subsection (a)(1) is so large to cause it to be 
     impracticable to join or identify each claim, the Attorney 
     General shall not be required to so identify the individual 
     recipients for which payment has been made, but rather can 
     proceed to seek recovery based upon payments made to or on 
     behalf of an entire class of recipients.
       (c) Rules of Evidence.--In any action brought under this 
     section, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall be construed, 
     regarding the introduction and probative value of evidence on 
     the issues of causation and damages, in order to effectuate 
     the purpose of this Act to the greatest extend possible. The 
     issues of causation and damages in any such action may be 
     proven by use of statistical analysis or epidemiological 
     evidence, or both.
       (d) Share of Liability.--In any action brought under this 
     section in which a third party is liable due to its 
     manufacture, sale, or distribution of a tobacco product, the 
     Attorney General shall be allowed to proceed under a market 
     share theory, if the products involved are substantially 
     interchangeable and substantially similar factual or legal 
     issues would be involved in seeking recovery against each 
     liable third party individually. In the alternative, the 
     Attorney General shall be allowed to proceed under a theory 
     of concerted action or enterprise liability, or both, if 
     warranted by the facts presented to the court.
       (e) Distribution of Recovery.--Amounts recovered under any 
     action brought under this section shall be paid to the United 
     States and disposed of as follows:
       (1) In the case of amounts recovered arising out of a claim 
     under tile XIX of the Social Security Act, there shall be 
     paid to each State agency an amount bearing the same 
     proportion to the total amount recovered as the State's share 
     of the amount paid by the State agency for such claim bears 
     to the total amount paid for such claim.
       (2) Such portion of the amounts recovered as is determined 
     to have been paid out of the trust funds under sections 1817 
     and 1841 of the Social Security Act shall be repaid to such 
     trust funds.
       (3) The remainder of the amounts recovered shall be 
     deposited as miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury of the 
     United States.

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I support the Medicare and Medicaid 
Third Party Liability Act that has been introduced by the Senator from 
New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg]. This legislation will allow taxpayers to 
recover Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health program costs 
associated with tobacco related illnesses. For too long the tobacco 
companies have been raking in profits while the American taxpayers have 
been coughing up billions in health care costs attributable to tobacco 
related illness.
  A 1993 report by the Office of Technology Assessment indicates that 
tobacco related illnesses cost taxpayers approximately $68 billion in 
1990--this includes $20.8 billion in direct costs, $6.9 billion in 
indirect morbidity costs, and $40.3 billion in indirect mortality 
costs.
  The Medicare share of these costs total $16 billion per year for 
inpatient care alone. The Medicaid share of these costs total $3 
billion per year--again this is $3 billion in inpatient costs alone.
  The Columbia University Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse has 
estimated that tobacco related illnesses will cost the Medicare Program 
$800 billion over the next 20 years. At that rate, Medicare will go 
bankrupt.
  The American people are footing the health care bill for a product--
that when used as intended--causes disease, disability, and death. It 
is unconscionable that the tobacco industry has profited while the 
taxpayer has been left with the devastating and widespread costs 
associated with tobacco use.
  Almost all of the health care reform bills before Congress call for 
an increase in the tobacco tax. I applaud this and am hopeful that 
Congress will hold the line and keep the tax high enough to discourage 
smoking--particularly among our young people.
  At a time when Congress is about to ask smokers to pay more for 
tobacco products it also seems appropriate to ask tobacco companies to 
pay for the costs their products impose on Medicare and Medicaid as 
well as other Federal programs.
  We are asking smokers to pay. Is it so much to ask the tobacco 
industry to turn some of their enormous profits over to treating and 
curing the disease and disability their products bring on?
  The Medicare and Medicaid Third Party Liability Act would allow the 
Federal Government to sue for Medicare and Medicaid costs, as well as 
other Federal health program costs, associated with tobacco related 
illnesses in one proceeding--much like a class action suit--instead of 
suing for the costs associated with the tobacco related illness of each 
individual recipient or beneficiary.
  Under this legislation the Attorney General could use statistical 
analysis and epidemiological evidence to determine the costs that 
smoking related illness impose on Federal health programs.
  This legislation by itself would not compel tobacco companies to pay 
any specific amount. The Federal Government would file suit on behalf 
of the taxpayers and would have to argue and win its case in Federal 
court.
  Certainly this legislation will be criticized by the tobacco 
industry. I expect them to argue that the legal principles established 
by the legislation could easily be extended to other industries like 
beef, sugar, pharmaceutical, and automobiles. The legislation that we 
are introducing today is clearly limited to tobacco--a product unlike 
any other product on the market. Tobacco is the only product on the 
market today that when used as intended causes death, disease, and 
disability. It is a product that deserves to be singled out and treated 
differently.
  In addition, the tobacco industry is an industry that deserves to be 
singled out. It is an industry that has known about the dangers of its 
product for years and has consistently acted to hide this fact from the 
public. The House has held hearings over the last few days that 
indicate that the tobacco companies have been manipulating the nicotine 
levels in cigarettes in order to get people permanently hooked on their 
product--an action that drives up Federal health care costs and robs 
taxpayers. We need to act now to protect the American taxpayer.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DORGAN:
  S. 2246. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to include 
organ donation information with individual income tax refund payments; 
to the Committee on Finance.


                     Organ Donation Insert Card Act

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
proposes a cost-effective public education campaign to encourage organ 
donation. The Organ Donation Insert Card Act, introduced in the House 
by my good friend Representative Richard Durbin, would direct the 
Treasury Department to enclose organ donation information when it mails 
next year's Federal income tax refund checks.


                      the shortage of organ donors

  The most common tragedy in organ transplantation is not the patient 
who receives a transplant but dies, but the patient who has to wait too 
long for an organ and dies before a suitable organ can be found. The 
number of people who need an organ transplant greatly exceeds the 
number of available organs, and waiting lists are growing.
  In 1990, 20,000 people were on organ donor waiting lists. In less 
than 3 years, that has jumped to more than 31,000, and a new name is 
added every 20 minutes. Meanwhile, 2,500 people on waiting lists die 
each year because their bodies simply cannot wait any longer for the 
needed transplant. The list also includes more than 23,000 people who 
must survive on kidney dialysis while they wait.
  Organ transplants only happen because a grieving family authorizes 
the transplanting of their loved one's organs. It can be difficult to 
cope with death, particularly when someone dies unexpectedly. But 
something good can come from this tragedy. Organ donation can give 
another person a new chance at life. In fact, an organ donor often can 
give several other human beings a new chance at life, because doctors 
now can transplant about 25 different types of organs and tissues.
  It is particularly frustrating that we lose so many opportunities to 
use healthy organs--and many on the waiting list die--because no one 
authorizes donation of the organs.
  While 4,500 donors supply more than 16,000 transplants each year, 
this represents only about one-third of the potential donors. Other 
potentially life-saving transplants never occur because people hesitate 
to authorize organ donation for themselves or for a family member.


                the organ donation insert card proposal

  Mr. President, my legislation would direct the Secretary of the 
Treasury to enclose with each income tax refund check mailed next year 
information that encourages organ donation. The information would 
include a detachable organ-donor card. It would also include a message 
urging recipients to sign the card; tell their family they are willing 
to be an organ donor, and encourage their family members to request or 
authorize organ donation when appropriate.
  The weak link in our Nation's organ donation efforts is the link to 
the family. A Gallup Poll found that more than 90 percent of the public 
would authorize organ donation for a loved one who had expressed that 
wish before death, but less than half would consent to the donation if 
the discussion had not occurred. According to the poll, less than half 
of the public have told their families of their wishes regarding organ 
donation.
  As the poll indicates, organ donation won't happen unless the family 
authorizes it, regardless of whether a potential donor signed a donor 
card or checked a box on a driver's license. This means it's essential 
for people who wish to donate organs to tell their family about their 
wishes. If their family members can recall that a loved one talked to 
them about the matter, they are more likely to authorize the donation.
  The Treasury Department has said that enclosing information with 
every income tax refund would reach about 70 million households. They 
indicated that the enclosure would cost approximately $210,000.
  The population that would receive these cards is very appropriate for 
the organ donation appeal. For most transplants, the optimum age range 
for organ donors is 15 to 65. Individuals receiving income tax refunds 
tend to fit this demographic. They often are next-of-kin of others in 
the prime age range for organ donation. Therefore, this appeal will 
reach a very appropriate group in a highly cost-effective way.
  Furthermore, enclosing this appeal with IRS refund checks will not 
pose a logistical problem or burden the Treasury Department. Tax refund 
checks frequently are accompanied by an insert with a public service 
message, such as the 1994 offer for World Cup commemorative coins. In 
past years, enclosures have advertised similar appeals, such as a 
``Bill of Rights'' coin, a Mount Rushmore anniversary coin, and an 
Eisenhower centennial coin.


                           positive reactions

  The medical and transplant recipient communities strongly support 
this proposal. More than a dozen organizations have endorsed the 
measure, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American 
Nurses Association, the American Society of Transplant Physicians, the 
American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the Association of Organ 
Procurement Organizations, the American Heart Association, the National 
Kidney Foundation, and the Transplant Recipients International 
Organization.
  By increasing public awareness and encouraging family discussion 
about organ donation, this legislation would increase the number of 
donors and reduce the number of people who die while waiting for 
transplants. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. 
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. 2246

           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 ``Organ Donation Insert Card 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. ORGAN DONATION INFORMATION INCLUDED WITH INCOME TAX 
                   REFUND PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     include with any payment of a refund of individual income tax 
     made during the period beginning on February 1st of the first 
     calendar year beginning more than 4 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and ending on June 30th of such 
     year a copy of the document described in subsection (b).
       (b) Text of Document.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, 
     after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services and organizations promoting organ donation, prepare 
     a document suitable for inclusion with individual income tax 
     refund payments which--
       (1) encourages organ donation;
       (2) includes a detachable organ donor card; and
       (3) urges recipients to--
       (A) sign and carry the organ donor card;
       (B) discuss organ donation with family members and tell 
     family members about the recipient's desire to be an organ 
     donor if the occasion arises; and
       (C) encourage family members to request or authorize organ 
     donation if the occasion arises.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Rockefeller, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S.J. Res. 205. A joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to 
the compact to provide for joint natural resource management and 
enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to natural resources and 
boating at the Jennings Randolph Lake project lying in Garrett County, 
MD, and Mineral County, WV, entered into between the States of West 
Virginia and Maryland; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 jennings randolph lake project compact

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation together with my colleagues Senators Byrd, Rockefeller, and 
Mikulski to grant congressional consent to a compact entered into 
between the States of West Virginia and Maryland, with concurrence of 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to provide for joint management and 
enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to natural resources and 
boating at Jennings Randolph Lake.
  Jennings Randolph Lake is located on the North Branch of the Potomac 
River in Garrett County, MD, and Mineral County, WV. Construction of 
the dam, which created the lake, was authorized by the Flood Control 
Act of 1962 and the project was specifically designed to improve the 
water quality of the Potomac River, reduce flood damage, provide water 
supply, and opportunities for recreation. Completed in 1982, the dame 
is one of the largest dams east of the Mississippi--approximately 6.6 
miles long, with a surface area of 952 acres and a drainage area of 263 
square miles. Originally named Bloomington Lake, the project was 
rededicated in May 1987 in honor of former West Virginia Senator 
Jennings Randolph.
  The lake and surrounding area are extraordinarily beautiful and 
include some of the most picturesque countryside in the Nation. The 
lake and the North Branch of the Potomac River below the dam support a 
recreational trout fishery that is regarded as one of the best in 
America. Other recreational opportunities including boating, downstream 
whitewater rafting, hiking, and picnicking are drawing increasing 
number of visitors to the lake. The Army Corps of Engineers currently 
operates and maintains five recreation sites at the project and the 
State of Maryland, in cooperation with the corps, is in the process of 
developing a boat launch and support facilities on the Maryland side of 
the project.
  Unfortunately, the creation of the lake removed the natural boundary 
between West Virginia and Maryland and the meandering nature of the 
former river and the depth of the lake have made it virtually 
impossible to reestablish the precise location of the boundary. As a 
consequence, enforcement of natural resources and boating laws 
regulations on the lake has been tentative at best and at worst, 
nonexistent. As recreational uses of the lake continue to increase, it 
is anticipated that enforcement problems will become increasingly 
difficult.
  The compact legislation I am introducing today provides the states of 
West Virginia and Maryland with concurrent jurisdiction over the 
project area to enable them to jointly enforce natural resource and 
boating laws and regulations. This approach eliminates the need to 
redefine the boundary between the two States for law enforcement 
purposes. As required before congressional action can be taken, the 
compact was approved by the respective legislatures of Maryland and 
West Virginia in their 1993 legislative sessions.
  Mr. President, this legislation will address the ongoing problems 
associated with the management and enforcement of laws and regulations 
relating to natural resources and boating at the Jennings Randolph Lake 
project. It has been long awaited by both States and I urge its swift 
enactment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                             S.J. Res. 205

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.

       The Congress hereby consents to the Jennings Randolph Lake 
     Project Compact entered into between the States of West 
     Virginia and Maryland which compact is substantially as 
     follows:
                               ``COMPACT
       ``Whereas the State of Maryland and the State of West 
     Virginia, with the concurrence of the United States 
     Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, have approved and 
     desire to enter into a compact to provide for joint natural 
     resource management and enforcement of laws and regulations 
     pertaining to natural resources and boating at the Jennings 
     Randolph Lake Project lying in Garrett County, Maryland and 
     Mineral County, West Virginia, for which they seek the 
     approval of Congress, and which compact is as follows:
       ``Whereas the signatory parties hereto desire to provide 
     for joint natural resource management and enforcement of laws 
     and regulations pertaining to natural resources and boating 
     at the Jennings Randolph Lake Project lying in Garrett 
     County, Maryland and Mineral County, West Virginia, for which 
     they have a joint responsibility; and they declare as 
     follows:
       ``1. The Congress, under Public Law 87-874, authorized the 
     development of the Jennings Randolph Lake Project for the 
     North Branch of the Potomac River substantially in accordance 
     with House Document Number 469, 87th Congress, 2nd Session 
     for flood control, water supply, water quality, and 
     recreation; and
       ``2. Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (Ch 665, 58 
     Stat. 534) provides that the Chief of Engineers, under the 
     supervision of the Secretary of War (now Secretary of the 
     Army), is authorized to construct, maintain and operate 
     public park and recreational facilities in reservoir areas 
     under control of such Secretary for the purpose of boating, 
     swimming, bathing, fishing, and other recreational purposes, 
     so long as the same is not inconsistent with the laws for the 
     protection of fish and wildlife of the State(s) in which such 
     area is situated; and
       ``3. Pursuant to the authorities cited above, the U.S. Army 
     Engineer District (Baltimore), hereinafter `District', did 
     construct and now maintains and operates the Jennings 
     Randolph Lake Project; and
       ``4. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 
     91-190) encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between 
     man and his environment, promotes efforts which will 
     stimulate the health and welfare of man, and encourages 
     cooperation with State and local governments to achieve these 
     ends; and
       ``5. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-
     666c) provides for the consideration and coordination with 
     other features of water-resource development programs through 
     the effectual and harmonious planning, development, 
     maintenance, and coordination of wildlife conservation and 
     rehabilitation; and
       ``6. The District has Fisheries and Wildlife Plans as part 
     of the District's project Operational Management Plan; and
       ``7. In the respective States, the Maryland Department of 
     Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as `Maryland DNR') 
     and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources 
     (hereinafter referred to as `West Virginia DNR') are 
     responsible for providing a system of control, propagation, 
     management, protection, and regulation of natural resources 
     and boating in Maryland and West Virginia and the enforcement 
     of laws and regulations pertaining to those resources as 
     provided in Annotated Code of Maryland Natural Resources 
     Article and West Virginia Chapter 20, respectively, and the 
     successors thereof; and
       ``8. The District, the Maryland DNR, and the West Virginia 
     DNR are desirous of conserving, perpetuating and improving 
     fish and wildlife resources and recreational benefits of the 
     Jennings Randolph Lake Project; and
       ``9. The District and the States of Maryland and West 
     Virginia wish to implement the aforesaid acts and 
     responsibilities through this Compact and they each recognize 
     that consistent enforcement of the natural resources and 
     boating laws and regulations can best be achieved by entering 
     this Compact:
       ``Now, therefore, be it  Resolved, That the States of 
     Maryland and West Virginia, with the concurrence of the 
     United States Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 
     hereby solemnly covenant and agree with each other, upon 
     enactment of concurrent legislation by The Congress of the 
     United States and by the respective state legislatures, to 
     the Jennings Randolph Lake Project Compact, which consists of 
     this preamble and the articles that follow:

                ``Article I--Name, Findings, and Purpose

       ``1.1 This compact shall be known and may be cited as the 
     Jennings Randolph Lake Project Compact.
       ``1.2 The legislative bodies of the respective signatory 
     parties, with the concurrence of the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers, hereby find and declare:
       ``1. The water resources and project lands of the Jennings 
     Randolph Lake Project are affected with local, state, 
     regional, and national interest, and the planning, 
     conservation, utilization, protection and management of these 
     resources, under appropriate arrangements for inter-
     governmental cooperation, are public purposes of the 
     respective signatory parties.
       ``2. The lands and waters of the Jennings Randolph Lake 
     Project are subject to the sovereign rights and 
     responsibilities of the signatory parties, and it is the 
     purpose of this compact that, notwithstanding any boundary 
     between Maryland and West Virginia that preexisted the 
     creation of Jennings Randolph Lake, the parties will have and 
     exercise concurrent jurisdiction over any lands and waters of 
     the Jennings Randolph Lake Project concerning natural 
     resources and boating laws and regulations in the common 
     interest of the people of the region.

                ``Article II--District Responsibilities

       ``The District, within the Jennings Randolph Lake Project,
       ``2.1 Acknowledges that the Maryland DNR and West Virginia 
     DNR have authorities and responsibilities in the 
     establishment, administration and enforcement of the natural 
     resources and boating laws and regulations applicable to this 
     project, provided that the laws and regulations promulgated 
     by the States support and implement, where applicable, the 
     intent of the Rules and Regulations Governing Public Use of 
     Water Resources Development Projects administered by the 
     Chief of Engineers in Title 36, Chapter RI, Part 327, Code of 
     Federal Regulations,
       ``2.2 Agrees to practice those forms of resource management 
     as determined jointly by the District, Maryland DNR and West 
     Virginia DNR to be beneficial to natural resources and which 
     will enhance public recreational opportunities compatible 
     with other authorized purposes of the project,
       ``2.3 Agrees to consult with the Maryland DNR and West 
     Virginia DNR prior to the issuance of any permits for 
     activities or special events which would include, but not 
     necessarily be limited to: fishing tournaments, training 
     exercises, regattas, marine parades, placement of ski ramps, 
     slalom water ski courses and the establishment of private 
     markers and/or lighting. All such permits issued by the 
     District will require the permittee to comply with all State 
     laws and regulations,
       ``2.4 Agrees to consult with the Maryland DNR and West 
     Virginia DNR regarding any recommendations for regulations 
     affecting natural resources, including, but not limited to, 
     hunting, trapping, fishing or boating at the Jennings 
     Randolph Lake Project which the District believes might be 
     desirable for reasons of public safety, administration of 
     public use and enjoyment,
       ``2.5 Agrees to consult with the Maryland DNR and West 
     Virginia DNR relative to the marking of the lake with buoys, 
     aids to navigation, regulatory markers and establishing and 
     posting of speed limits, no wake zones, restricted or other 
     control areas and to provide, install and maintain such 
     buoys, aids to navigation and regulatory markers as are 
     necessary for the implementation of the District's 
     Operational Management Plan. All buoys, aids to navigation 
     and regulatory markers to be used shall be marked in 
     conformance with the Uniform State Waterway Marking System,
       ``2.6 Agrees to allow hunting, trapping, boating and 
     fishing by the public in accordance with the laws and 
     regulations relating to the Jennings Randolph Lake Project,
       ``2.7 Agrees to provide, install and maintain public ramps, 
     parking areas, courtesy docks, etc., as provided for by the 
     approved Corps of Engineers Master Plan, and
       ``2.8 Agrees to notify the Maryland DNR and the West 
     Virginia DNR of each reservoir drawdown prior thereto 
     excepting drawdown for the reestablishment of normal lake 
     levels following flood control operations and drawdown 
     resulting from routine water control management operations 
     described in the reservoir regulation manual including 
     releases requested by water supply owners and normal water 
     quality releases. In case of emergency releases or emergency 
     flow curtailments, telephone or oral notification will be 
     provided. The District reserves the right, following issuance 
     of the above notice, to make operational and other tests 
     which may be necessary to insure the safe and efficient 
     operation of the dam, for inspection and maintenance 
     purposes, and for the gathering of water quality data both 
     within the impoundment and in the Potomac River downstream 
     from the dam.

                 ``Article III--State Responsibilities

       ``The State of Maryland and the State of West Virginia 
     agree:
       ``3.1 That each State will have and exercise concurrent 
     jurisdiction with the District and the other State for the 
     purpose of enforcing the civil and criminal laws of the 
     respective States pertaining to natural resources and boating 
     laws and regulations over any lands and waters of the 
     Jennings Randolph Lake Project;
       ``3.2 That existing natural resources and boating laws and 
     regulations already in effect in each State shall remain in 
     force on the Jennings Randolph Lake Project until either 
     State amends, modifies or rescinds its laws and regulations;
       ``3.3 That the Agreement for Fishing Privileges dated June 
     24, 1985 between the State of Maryland and the State of West 
     Virginia, as amended, remains in full force and effect;
       ``3.4 To enforce the natural resources and boating laws and 
     regulations applicable to the Jennings Randolph Lake Project;
       ``3.5 To supply the District with the name, address and 
     telephone number of the person(s) to be contacted when any 
     drawdown except those resulting from normal regulation 
     procedures occurs;
       ``3.6 To inform the Reservoir Manager of all emergencies or 
     unusual activities occurring on the Jennings Randolph Lake 
     Project;
       ``3.7 To provide training to District employees in order to 
     familiarize them with natural resources and boating laws and 
     regulations as they apply to the Jennings Randolph Lake 
     Project; and
       ``3.8 To recognize that the District and other Federal 
     Agencies have the right and responsibility to enforce, within 
     the boundaries of the Jennings Randolph Lake Project, all 
     applicable Federal laws, rules and regulations so as to 
     provide the public with safe and healthful recreational 
     opportunities and to provide protection to all federal 
     property within the project.

                    ``Article IV--Mutual Cooperation

       ``4.1 Pursuant to the aims and purposes of this Compact, 
     the State of Maryland, the State of West Virginia and the 
     District mutually agree that representatives of their natural 
     resource management and enforcement agencies will cooperate 
     to further the purposes of this Compact. This cooperation 
     includes, but is not limited to, the following:
       ``4.2 Meeting jointly at least once annually, and providing 
     for other meetings as deemed necessary for discussion of 
     matters relating to the management of natural resources and 
     visitor use on lands and waters within the Jennings Randolph 
     Lake Project;
       ``4.3 Evaluating natural resources and boating, to develop 
     natural resources and boating management plans and to 
     initiate and carry out management programs;
       ``4.4 Encouraging the dissemination of joint publications, 
     press releases or other public information and the 
     interchange between parties of all pertinent agency policies 
     and objectives for the use and perpetuation of natural 
     resources of the Jennings Randolph Lake Project; and
       ``4.5 Entering into working arrangements as occasion 
     demands for the use of lands, waters, construction and use of 
     buildings and other facilities at the project.

                    ``Article V--General Provisions

       ``5.1 Each and every provision of this Compact is subject 
     to the laws of the States of Maryland and West Virginia and 
     the laws of the United States, and the delegated authority in 
     each instance.
       ``5.2 The enforcement and applicability of natural 
     resources and boating laws and regulations referenced in this 
     Compact shall be limited to the lands and waters of the 
     Jennings Randolph Lake Project, including but not limited to 
     the prevailing reciprocal fishing laws and regulations 
     between the States of Maryland and West Virginia.
       ``5.3 Nothing in this Compact shall be construed as 
     obligating any party hereto to the expenditure of funds or 
     the future payment of money in excess of appropriations 
     authorized by law.
       ``5.4 The provisions of this Compact shall be severable, 
     and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of the 
     Jennings Randolph Lake Project Compact is declared to be 
     unconstitutional or inapplicable to any signatory party or 
     agency of any party, the constitutionality and applicability 
     of the Compact shall not be otherwise affected as to any 
     provision, party, or agency. It is the legislative intent 
     that the provisions of the Compact be reasonably and 
     liberally construed to effectuate the stated purposes of the 
     Compact.
       ``5.5 No member of or delegate to Congress, or signatory 
     shall be admitted to any share or part of this Compact, or to 
     any benefit that may arise therefrom; but this provision 
     shall not be construed to extend to this agreement if made 
     with a corporation for its general benefit.
       ``5.6 When this Compact has been ratified by the 
     legislature of each respective State, when the Governor of 
     West Virginia and the Governor of Maryland have executed this 
     Compact on behalf of their respective States and have caused 
     a verified copy thereof to be filed with the Secretary of 
     State of each respective State, when the Baltimore District 
     of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has executed its 
     concurrence with this Compact, and when this Compact has been 
     consented to by the Congress of the United States, then this 
     Compact shall become operative and effective.
       ``5.7 Either State may, by legislative act, after one 
     year's written notice to the other, withdraw from this 
     Compact. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may withdraw its 
     concurrence with this Compact upon one year's written notice 
     from the Baltimore District Engineer to the Governor of each 
     State.
       ``5.8 This Compact may be amended from time to time. Each 
     proposed amendment shall be presented in resolution form to 
     the Governor of each State and the Baltimore District 
     Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. An amendment to 
     this Compact shall become effective only after it has been 
     ratified by the legislatures of both signatory States and 
     concurred in by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore 
     District. Amendments shall become effective thirty days after 
     the date of the last concurrence or ratification.''.
       Sec. 2. The right to alter, amend or repeal this joint 
     resolution is hereby expressly reserved. The consent granted 
     by this joint resolution shall not be construed as impairing 
     or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the 
     United States in and over the region which forms the subject 
     of the compact.

                          ____________________