[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Reid, and Mr. 
        Stevens):
  S. 2283. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of prostate cancer screening and certain drug 
treatment services under part B of the Medicare Program, to amend 
chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, to provide for coverage of 
such screening and services under the programs of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, and to expand research and education programs of the 
National Institutes of Health and the Public Health Service relating to 
prostate cancer; to the Committee on Finance.


        the prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment act of 1994

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Prostate Cancer 
Diagnosis and Treatment Act of 1994. This year 200,000 men will be 
diagnosed with prostate cancer and another 38,000 will die from this 
disease. While advancements in medical technology and treatments are 
offering the victims of this disease an ever increasing chance of early 
detection and survival, coverage for prostate cancer screening and 
treatment under our Federal health care programs remains far behind 
these advancements.
  Mr. President, in March of this year I was diagnosed with prostate 
cancer. The cancer was discovered through a prostate specific antigen 
or PSA test administered as part of a routine physical. I had no 
physical symptoms--no indication that I was seriously ill with a 
potentially deadly disease. In early April I had surgery to remove the 
cancer and I am pleased to report that the surgery was successful and 
that no further treatments were necessary. The promptness of detection 
in my case and in most other prostate cancer cases usually means the 
difference between survival or death.
  However, for millions of Medicare recipients and veterans, members of 
an age group that encompasses 90 percent of prostate cancer victims, 
the simple PSA test and other advanced tests that lead to early 
detection and more effective treatment are not available as part of 
their health care coverage.
  As a result of this gap in coverage, prostate cancer deaths have 
increased by 17 percent between 1988 and 1992. Prostate cancer 
currently has a mortality rate of 25 percent, a rate equal to that of 
breast cancer. This Nation currently spends over 1 billion dollars per 
year on late stage prostate cancer treatment because of a lack of early 
detection. Mr. President, there are a few inexpensive and simple steps 
that Congress can take to significantly reduce the mortality rate for 
this disease.
  The Medicare and veterans health programs that are under the direct 
control of Congress cover much of the age group most at risk for 
prostate cancer. The legislation that I am introducing would provide 
for PSA and ultrasound screening tests as a part of Medicare--tests not 
currently covered by the program. This one step will provide early 
detection for thousands of prostate cancer cases each year--detection 
that will significantly enhance the survival chances in these cases.
  In addition, this bill would extend prostate cancer screening to the 
veterans health care program. There is currently no screening program 
available under Veterans health coverage. Annual screening is 
recommended by the American Urological Association for men over 50.
  This initiative would also add Medicare coverage for prostate cancer 
treatment with advanced oral drugs that are significantly extending and 
improving the lives of prostate cancer victims. Finally, the bill would 
provide for increased authorization for research into the causes of and 
treatments for prostate cancer over the next 2 fiscal years.

  Mr. President, regardless of the outcome of the health care reform 
debate, Congress must and ultimately will address this deficiency in 
our Federal health programs. To make the simple changes in these 
programs that I have outlined here today will save thousands of lives 
in the years to come and bring us closer to eliminating this killer 
disease that afflicts so many American men. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in support of this legislation.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, let me express to the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama, I respect him very greatly for his statement, and 
all of his colleagues are also enormously thankful that the operation 
was a success.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 2284. A bill to redesignate the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 
National Monument as a national park, to establish the Black Canyon of 
the Gunnison National Conservation Area, to establish the Curecanti 
National Recreation Area, to include the Gunnison River in the Nation's 
Wild and Scenic River System, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   the black canyon conservation act

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am sending legislation to the desk to 
designate the existing Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument 
as a national park, designate the Gunnison River as a Wild and Scenic 
River, establish the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Conservation 
Area and establish the Curecanti National Recreation Area.
  My goal is not to enact this legislation this Congress--the issues 
may be too numerous and complicated for that--but to hold hearings, 
learn what the administration thinks of my efforts, wrestle over any 
changes that need to be made and consult with my colleagues so Congress 
can move forward expeditiously next year.
  Many of the most complicated issues I have addressed in this bill 
involve water and water rights. That's no surprise given that this 
legislation directly impacts a major tributary of the Colorado River. I 
have waited until now to introduce this bill primarily so that those 
who want to dissect, interpret, and construe the language of the bill 
will have ample time to help me clarify my language if necessary.
  The designation of a new national park, national conservation area 
and a wild and scenic river could give rise to the creation of new 
Federal reserved water rights. Rather than debate the issue of whether 
Federal reserve water rights exist, and whether or not they should be 
expressly denied, I have elected in the bill to define any new Federal 
reserve water rights up front.
  Coloradoans have just spent 10 years debating about the issue of 
Federal reserved rights and wilderness areas. It was not clear whether 
the creation of new wilderness areas gave rise to a Federal reserved 
water rights. What was clear was that Congress will not pass a bill 
that denies such a right if it would otherwise be created.
  This bill states that any Federal reserved water right arising from 
these designations shall not expand or conflict with the existing 
reserved water right for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
Monument, which has been decreed but not quantified. The language of 
the bill also states that such Federal water rights are to be exercised 
coincident with the existing reserved water right and shall be deemed 
to be fully satisfied by deliveries under the water service contract 
described in section 8(c) of the bill.
  This language allows us to avoid arguments about the creation 
of Federal reserved water rights and allows us to focus on the 
mechanism that can ensure water deliveries and the protection of these 
new BLM and national park system units.

  The other major issue comes down to increasing congressional 
hostility to new national parks. It is no secret that we are loving our 
parks to death. I recognize that we do not have the money to properly 
maintain the parks we have, and there is a reluctance to designate new 
parks without some set criteria. I have addressed these issues head on 
in my bill, and I welcome some lively debate about the suitability of 
the redesignation I am proposing.
  Mr. President, I want to say that this bill has really taken nearly a 
decade to produce. The time has come to either protect these resources 
for future generations or set this proposal aside. I say this because 
in the next 2\1/2\ years, I want proponents to give their all to help 
me pass a bill. I want all the parties involved to roll up their 
sleeves and work with me.
  Finally, I ask that the rest of my statement, a copy of the bill and 
a section-by-section breakdown of the bill be included in the Record at 
this time.


                               background

  Even before my election to the House of Representatives in 1986, 
citizens of local communities, representatives of national 
environmental organizations, and Federal and State officials have been 
working as members of an informal advisory committee to help draft 
legislation to redesignate the Black Canyon of the Gunnison in western 
Colorado as a national park.
  As with all proposals seeking to change the use or status of a public 
resource, many of the advisory committee members have had competing 
interests. For instance, the western Colorado congress favored 
protecting the Gunnison River; water users were concerned about the 
potential impacts of any Federal reserved water rights that would be 
created by these designations; the Colorado River energy distributors 
sought to minimize the impact of the legislation on the operation of 
the huge Federal dams on the river; the Montrose Chamber of Commerce 
wants to use the designation to attract visitors; while the Wilderness 
Society, the Sierra Club, and the National Parks and Conservation 
Association worked to ensure the bill would not be contrary to what 
they felt our Nation's natural resource policies ought to be. Other 
members of the advisory committee included: The National Park Service, 
the Bureau of Land Management, the Western Area Power Administration, 
the Colorado Cattleman's Association, the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle 
Users Coalition, and river rafting representatives.
  I asked the members of the advisory committee to try to reach some 
consensus on a proposal that would accomplish several goals:
  Allow Representatives and Senators from every State to judge whether 
the Black Canyon of the Gunnison is worthy of national park 
designation;
  Address competing demands for water from the Gunnison River Basin;
  Protect the Gunnison River and the lower Gunnison Gorge;
  Protect legitimate existing uses of the areas;
  Acknowledge the local need to attract tourism to the area; and
  Use existing resources, including land-use planning documents, to the 
fullest extent.
  To give you an idea why I wanted to undertake this effort, I would 
like to refer to a Southwest Parks and Monuments booklet that begins by 
stating, ``Few words adequately describe the splendor of the Black 
Canyon of the Gunnison--far too many people pass by it. A relative 
unknown, it ranks among the deepest and narrowest canyons in North 
America, dwarfing such popular chasms as the Royal Gorge and Bryce 
Canyon.'' Truly, its sheer walls, shadowed depths, and the intense 
colors produced by canyon sunsets awe every visitor. The Ute Indians 
were very superstitious about the canyon, believing that no man could 
enter it and return alive.
  The existing Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument, managed 
by the National Park Service, and the adjacent downstream Gunnison 
Gorge Special Recreation Management Area, managed by the Bureau of Land 
Management, are located in western Colorado. The 29-mile canyon--which 
includes the national monument and the BLM area--contain steep walls, a 
deep gorge and unparalleled scenery. The canyon and its rim host a 
variety of wildlife, including bears, cougars, golden eagles, and 
peregrine falcons. Recreational uses include gold-medal fishing, 
hiking, climbing--and in the BLM managed portion--white-water boating, 
grazing, hunting and trapping. Finally, flowing through the Black 
Canyon and the nationally significant BLM lands is one of the most 
outstanding and scenic rivers in the Nation--the Gunnison River.


                       national park designation

  The Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument was established in 
1933 by Presidential proclamation under the 1906 Antiquities Act. This 
bill would redesignate it as the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
Park. No lands would be added to the 20,700-acre monument--and none 
need to be as the monument has been expanded in 1938, 1939, 1960, and 
1984, and a wilderness area was added in 1976.

  Many complain that we cannot afford any new parks because we cannot 
afford to manage the parks we already have. I was very mindful of this 
complaint and in 1988, I asked the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee 
to direct the National Park Service to complete a ``Resource/Boundary 
Evaluation for Lands Adjacent to Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
Monument, Colorado.'' This study concluded that without the addition of 
other significant resources, the monument did not qualify for national 
park status.
  I agree that generally, a national park is considered to have a wider 
variety of resources than a national monument. There is no set criteria 
for the establishment of a national park, however. No pattern for a 
park exists and the routes to national park status are as varied as the 
national parks themselves. Some parks are bigger and some national 
parks are smaller than the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
Monument. The decision about what areas are suitable for national park 
designation and which areas are not suitable for national parks status 
is entirely up to Congress.
  Nevertheless, beginning with the premise that my advisory group 
needed to identify other resources for protection that would be 
consistent with the National Park Service's recommendation, we set 
about to craft a proposal that would use the redesignated monument as 
the centerpiece for an entire enclave of federally protected resources.


                       National Conservation Area

  The second component of this proposal would designate about 64,000 
acres of adjacent BLM managed lands as a national conservation area. 
Within that area, about 21,038 acres have been recommended as 
wilderness.
  The bill would withdraw from mineral entry, subject to valid existing 
rights, all Federal lands within the NCA. This shouldn't have any 
impact as the number of mining claims is very small--the BLM has said 
there are only 10 claims in the entire area--and the possibility of 
these claims ever being developed in very slim. Hunting, trapping, and 
fishing would be allowed in the NCA, as would grazing permitted prior 
to the bill's enactment. Motorized vehicle use is allowed on 
specifically designated routes. A general management plan is required 
to be prepared within 3 years after enactment.
  In the eyes of my advisory committee, this conservation area 
constituted the second leg of the triad of resources it wanted to 
protect.


                         Wild and Scenic River

  The bill would also designate a 26-mile segment of the Gunnison River 
as a wild and scenic river. This segment would begin within the 
national monument and continue downstream to its confluence with the 
North Fork, below the NCA boundary.
  Although Colorado has many scenic rivers and wild rivers, only one 
has the national designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The 
advisory committee felt, and the BLM and Park Service agreed, that the 
Gunnison River deserves to be the second river to be designated as wild 
and scenic. But before the river could be protected, many complex legal 
and political issues remained to be resolved.
  The first step to resolving the outstanding water rights issues was 
to have the State Water Conservation Board accept a water right that 
was donated by Chevron to the Nature Conservancy. This water right 
provides the basis and required legal protection under State water law 
for a permanent instream flow of 300 cubic feet per second that will 
flow through the Gunnison Gorge.
  I was particularly excited about the acceptance of this water right 
because it proved that parties, historically at odds, could overcome 
philosophical differences in order to implement a permanent in-stream 
flow below a national monument, where a recognized Federal reserve 
water right already exists. In addition, monument's existing Federal 
reserve water right is being quantified by the National Park Service 
and can protect the national park with a much more senior water right 
than any new Federal reserve water right could.
  The second step was to ensure that future water development would not 
harm the stretch of river proposed for designation. Therefore, House 
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Miller and National Parks, Forest 
and Public Lands Subcommittee Chairman Vento joined me in writing to 
the Bureau of Reclamation on several occasions to request that the 
Bureau take this legislation into consideration before permitting any 
new projects on the Gunnison River.
  In response, the Bureau of Reclamation proposed crafting a contract 
that would allow it to provide adequate flows for the wild and scenic 
river through the national park and conservation area for fish, 
wildlife, and recreation users, in addition to satisfying the demand 
for water from Blue Mesa Reservoir.


                    Aspinall Water Service Contract

  An Aspinall water service contract may provide the perfect solution 
for settling the longstanding water rights controversies the advisory 
committee faced, and which remained unresolved when I first introduced 
this bill in 1990. Therefore, I have included language in this bill 
that directs the Bureau of Reclamation to operate the Federal dams on 
the river on an interim basis to provide water for the reasonable 
protection of natural resources of the areas established by this bill 
until the water contract has been completed. When completed, the 
contract is intended to fully satisfy the water needs of the new areas 
and the wild and scenic river--and it will have been completed 
cooperatively by many who originally had the vision to form the 
advisory committee to push this legislation forward.

  Finally, the Secretary must implement this bill consistent with and 
subject to all the compacts, and other applicable Federal laws that 
govern the allocation, appropriation, development, and exportation of 
the waters of the Colorado River Basin.


                        national recreation area

  The last component of this proposal involves the Curecanti National 
Recreation Area. The national recreation area was first recognized 
through an agreement between the National Park Service and the Bureau 
of Reclamation. This 40,000-acre recreation area serves more than a 
million visitors each year, making it one of the most popular 
attractions in Colorado.
  Although the area has been operating under a cooperative agreement, 
approved by the Secretary of the Interior, Congress has never formally 
recognized it, making it difficult for the Park Service to secure 
adequate funding.
  This proposal legislatively establishes the boundaries of the NRA on 
existing Federal lands and acknowledges the recreational purpose for 
which the land has been set aside. The bill ``grandfathers'' in such 
existing uses as grazing, hunting, fishing, off-road vehicle use, 
snowmobiling, and other uses that do not interfere with the primary 
purpose of the CRSP Act, which was water storage and power generation.
  The bill also allows the National Park Service to convey a parcel of 
land next to the Gunnison River, 7 miles west of Gunnison, to the 
community if it wishes to develop a city park between the town and the 
recreation area. This would help Gunnison realize one of its many long-
term goals for keeping tourists in Gunnison country.
  The Aspinal water service contract will take into consideration the 
water needs of the recreation area such that the water related needs of 
all areas which are part of this legislation will be provided for in 
the best possible manner.


                                summary

  I believe this bill accomplishes several things. First, it 
redesignates the monument as a national park without expanding the park 
boundaries. This preserves existing multiple uses within the area that 
are so important to off-road vehicle enthusiasts, hunters and 
fishermen, and local cattlemen who have grazing permits on adjacent 
lands. It also fulfills the demands of local business people who have 
long felt that only a park could entice new tourists to pass by this 
way.
  I realize this designation, however, does not and cannot come without 
cost. With increased use must come increased protection for the 
canyon's resources. A national park is a lot like a living museum. It 
is designed to interpret and protect, for all Americans and all 
generations, an area that Congress has set aside because of its unique 
and diverse resources.
  Combined with the establishment of a new national conservation area, 
one of only a handful of special areas run by the Bureau of Land 
Management, and the establishment of only the second wild and scenic 
river in our State, I hope my colleagues will agree that Colorado 
deserves another national park and stands ready to accept the 
responsibility that comes with it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section 
analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Section-by-Section Description

       (Italic text indicates changes from H.R. 1321 as introduced 
     in the 102d Congress.)


                         section 1. short title

       This section states that the bill's short title is the 
     ``Black Canyon Conservation Act.''


  section 2. redesignation of the national monument as a national park

       Section 2(a) redesignates the existing Black Canyon of the 
     Gunnison National Monument as a national park.
       Section 2(b) states that the new park shall consist of 
     lands within the existing Black Canyon of the Gunnison 
     National Monument and preserves all existing rights within 
     the new park.
       Section 2(c) directs the Secretary to manage the new park 
     in accordance with the National Park Service's organic act. 
     This section states that nothing in this Act shall interfere 
     with the purposes of the original Presidential proclamations 
     establishing the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 
     Monument. The language referring to the proclamation is 
     intended to ensure that the existing federal reserved water 
     right for the monument is preserved. This bill does not 
     contain the express disclaimer of a federal reserved water 
     right contained in section 3 of H.R. 1321.
       Section 2(d) states that any federal reserved water right 
     arising from the designation of the national park shall not 
     expand or conflict with the existing reserved water right for 
     the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument. This 
     section also states that such federal water rights are to be 
     exercised coincident with the existing reserved water right 
     and that any federal reserved water right for the national 
     park area shall be deemed to be fully satisfied by deliveries 
     under the water service contract described in section 8(c) 
     herein in any year. H.R. 1321 denied the reservation of a 
     federal reserved water right for the designated national 
     park.
       Section 2 of H.R. 1321 also stated congressional findings 
     and purposes which is no longer included. Section 3 of H.R. 
     1321 contained the provisions now included in section 2.


 section 3. establishment of the black canyon of the gunnison national 
                           conservation area

       Section 3(a) and 3(b) establishes the 64,139 acre Black 
     Canyon of the Gunnison National Conservation Area.
       Section 3(c) directs the Secretary to prepare and file maps 
     and boundary descriptions of the area. H.R. 1321 directed the 
     Secretary to file legal descriptions instead of boundary 
     descriptions. Eliminating the requirement of a formal legal 
     description eliminates the need to resurvey the area.
       Section 3(d) directs the Secretary to manage the 
     conservation area in accordance with the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act and other applicable laws.
       Section 3(e) withdraws the lands within the conservation 
     area (subject to valid existing rights) from mineral entry 
     and from mineral and geothermal leasing.
       Section 3(f) allows hunting, trapping and fishing to 
     continue within the conservation area in consultation with 
     the state wildlife agency.
       Section 3(g) allows grazing to continue within the 
     conservation area in accordance with the Taylor Grazing Act. 
     H.R. 1321 allowed grazing to continue within the conservation 
     area in accordance with the Colorado Wilderness Act.
       Section 3(h) states that any federal reserved water right 
     arising from the designation of the conservation area shall 
     not expand or conflict with the existing reserved water right 
     for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument. This 
     section also states that such federal water rights are to be 
     exercised coincident with the existing reserved water right 
     and that any federal reserved water right for the 
     conservation area shall be deemed to be fully satisfied by 
     deliveries under the water service contract described in 
     section 8(c) herein in any year. H.R. 1321 denied the 
     reservation of a federal reserved water right for the 
     conservation area.
       Section 3(i) states that motorized vehicles may be used 
     within the conservation area on designated routes. This 
     language simplifies and clarifies similar provisions 
     contained in H.R. 1321.
       Section 3(j) states that the Secretary shall have the power 
     to limit visitor use of the conservation area if he finds it 
     appropriate for the protection of the area. This is a new 
     section designed to protect the conservation area.
       Section 3(k) states that persons who violate regulations 
     that are establishedto protect the conservation area shall be 
     subjected to a fine of $10,000 and/or one year's 
     imprisonment.
       H.R. 1321 contained a provision designating the BLM 
     wilderness study area within the conservation as wilderness. 
     That provision is not in this bill.


  section 4. designating the gunnison river as a wild and scenic river

       Section 4(a) designates the Gunnison River from the 
     upstream boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison 
     National Monument to the Smith Fork as a Wild and Scenic 
     River. H.R. 1321 designated the Gunnison River as a Wild and 
     Scenic River to the North Fork of the Gunnison River. 
     Withdrawing the designation to the Smith Fork ensures if any 
     project is developed downstream of the designated reach, no 
     injurious inundation of the reach will occur.
       Section 4(b) states that the storage, diversion and 
     consumptive use of Gunnison River water downstream of the 
     designated reach shall not be considered to have an adverse 
     effect on the water related values of the newly designated 
     river. H.R. 1321 stated that the storage, diversion and 
     consumptive use of Gunnison River water outside of the 
     designated reach shall not be considered to have an adverse 
     effect on Wild and Scenic River. The specification that 
     downstream development will not be injurious is similar to 
     the provisions in the Cache La Poudre designation. Upstream 
     development will not be impaired, nor will it be injurious to 
     the Wild and Scenic designation of this reach of the Gunnison 
     River. The reach designated as a Wild and Scenic River is 
     insulated from upstream development by the operation of the 
     Wayne N. Aspinall Unit and will be protected by the contract 
     described in section 8(c).
       Section 4(c) states that any federal reserved water right 
     arising from the designation of the Wild and Scenic River 
     shall not expand or conflict with the existing reserved water 
     right for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument. 
     This section also states that such federal water rights are 
     to be exercised coincident with the existing reserved water 
     right and that any federal reserved water right for the Wild 
     and Scenic River area shall be deemed to be fully satisfied 
     by deliveries under the water service contract described in 
     section 8(c) herein in any year. H.R. 1321, denied the 
     reservation of a federal reserved water right for the 
     designated Wild and Scenic River reach.


         section 5. general management plan and visitor center

       Section 5(a) instructs the Secretary to develop a 
     comprehensive plan for the long-range protection and 
     management of the conservation area within three years of 
     enactment. The plan will incorporate the Bureau of Land 
     Management's existing Uncompahgre Basin Resource Management 
     Plan (completed on September 1988), the Gunnison Gorge 
     Recreation Area Management Plan completed on July 24, 1985 
     and supplemented on July 21, 1988). The plan shall also 
     incorporate existing wildlife habitat management plans and 
     directs the Secretary to consult with the state of Colorado.
       Section 5(b) authorizes the Secretary to construct a 
     visitor center. This provision was not included in H.R. 1321.
       Section 5(c) allows private or state lands that are within 
     or contiguous to the boundaries of the conservation area to 
     be incorporated into the conservation area if they are 
     acquired, without the need for statutory approval.
       Section 5(d) prohibits the disposal of federal lands within 
     the conservation area. This section also directs the 
     Secretary to manage the Bureau of Land Management Wilderness 
     Study Area within the conservation area in a manner so as not 
     to impair their suitability as wilderness.


   section 6. establishment of the curecanti national recreation area

       This section was not included in H.R. 1321. It was 
     introduced as H.R. 2925, in the 102nd Congress.
       Section 6(a) establishes the Curecanti National Recreation 
     Area as a unit of the National Park System.
       Section 6(b) directs the Secretary to prepare and file maps 
     and boundary descriptions of the area.
       Section 6(c) withdraws lands within the recreation area 
     (subject to valid existing rights) from mineral entry and 
     from mineral and geothermal leasing. This section transfers 
     administrative control of the recreation area from the Bureau 
     of Reclamation to the National Park Service. It states that 
     the establishment of the recreation area will not adversely 
     affect the operation and management of dams, structures, or 
     other facilities appurtenant to the Colorado River Storage 
     Project. It states that all lands within the recreation area 
     which have been withdrawn or acquired for reclamation 
     purposes shall remain subject to the purposes and uses 
     established under the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 
     1956 and such lands shall be delineated through a joint 
     agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation, the National 
     Park Service, and all associated entities.
       Section 6(d) adjusts the boundary of the Gunnison National 
     Forest to reflect the transfer of jurisdiction.


  section 7. administration of the curecanti national recreation area

       This section was not included in H.R. 1321. It was 
     introduced as H.R. 2925, in the 102d Congress.
       Section 7(a) directs the Secretary to administer the 
     recreation area in accordance with this Act and National Park 
     Service organic act.
       Section 7(b) directs the Secretary to provide for general 
     recreation uses; grazing; the maintenance of roads, stock 
     driveways, and utility rights-of-way; off-road vehicle and 
     snowmobile use on designated routes; and other such uses as 
     the Secretary may deem appropriate.
       Section 7(c) directs the Secretary to permit hunting, 
     fishing, and trapping within the recreation area. This 
     section allows the Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Colorado Division of Wildlife, to issue regulations, 
     designating zones and establish periods when such activities 
     will not be permitted.
       Section 7(d) allows the Secretary to acquire land within, 
     or adjacent to, the boundaries of the recreation area. This 
     section directs the Secretary to sell or exchange real 
     property and improvement within the recreation area, in 
     parcels of 10 acres or less if encroached upon by 
     improvements occupied by persons who in good faith relied 
     upon an erroneous survey, title search, or other land 
     description indicating that there was no such encroachment. 
     This section prohibits the Secretary from selling or 
     exchanging such a tract for less than fair market value, and 
     that the authority to sell or exchange such tracts expires 
     after 10 years.
       Section 7(e) directs the Secretary to convey to the city of 
     Gunnison, Colorado, the land known as the Riverway Tract to 
     be used for recreational purposes.


             section 8. operation of federal water projects

       This section was not included in H.R. 1321.
       Section 8(a) directs the Secretary to operate the Wayne N. 
     Aspinall Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project to 
     provide water for the reasonable protection of natural 
     resources of the areas established by this Act until the 
     water contract in section 8(c) has been completed. In 
     determining such operations, the Secretary shall consider 
     project purposes, existing water uses and shall consult with 
     water users, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park 
     Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, the State of Colorado, contractors who purchase 
     Federal power produced at the Unit, and other entities the 
     Secretary may deem appropriate.
       Section 8(b) directs the Secretary to operate the Wayne N. 
     Aspinall Unit and the Uncompahgre Project in a manner that is 
     consistent with the Taylor Park Reservoir Operation and 
     Storage Exchange Agreement dated August 28, 1975, by and 
     between the United States of America, the Colorado River 
     Water Conservation District, the Upper Gunnison Water 
     Conservation District, and the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users 
     Association, as amended.
       Section 8(c) directs the Secretary to execute a water 
     service contract as described in the notice to the Federal 
     Register of Wednesday, May 8, 1992, (Vol. 57, No. 88) 
     providing for the delivery of water to areas established by 
     this Act. The water service contract shall be deemed to fully 
     satisfy and fulfill any and all water needs and purposes 
     created by Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Act.
       Section 8(d) directs the Secretary to implement this Act in 
     a manner fully consistent with and subject to the Colorado 
     River Compact, the upper Colorado River Basin Compact, The 
     Water Treaty of 1944 with Mexico, the Boulder Canyon Project 
     Act, the Boulder County Project Adjustment Act, the Colorado 
     River Storage Project Act of 1956, the Colorado River Project 
     Act, and any other applicable Federal reclamation law or 
     decree that governs the allocation, appropriation, 
     development, and exportation of the waters of the Colorado 
     River Basin. It states that nothing in the Act shall be 
     construed to affect in any way the allocations of water 
     secured to the Colorado River Basin States by any compact law 
     or decree; or any Federal environmental law.
       Section 8(e) prohibits the Secretary from using funds from 
     the sale of electric power and energy to carry out the 
     purposes of the Act. If the Secretary finds that in any year 
     that the enactment of this Act does cause a reduction in net 
     offsetting receipts generated by all the provisions of this 
     Act, those costs shall be nonreimbursable.


              section 9. authorization of appropriations.

       Section 9 authorizes appropriations to carry out the 
     purposes of the Act.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  s. 2285. A bill to provide for the sound management and protection of 
redwood forest areas in Humboldt County, CA, by adding certain lands 
and waters to the Six Rivers National Forest and by including a portion 
of such lands in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                       the headwaters forest act

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the 
Headwaters Forest Act.
  This important legislation will help protect approximately 44,000 
acres of threatened redwood forests in northern California, and the 
numerous plant and animal species which depend on the forests for 
survival.
  This bill was introduced in the House by Congressman Dan Hamburg, and 
has the support of over 120 House co-sponsors. The bill has been 
approved by the House Natural Resources Committee and the House 
Agriculture Committee.
  The need for this legislation is particularly urgent. For over 120 
years, the Headwaters Forest had been managed in an environmentally and 
scientifically sound manner by the Pacific Lumber Co. But Pacific 
Lumber was acquired in a hostile takeover in 1985, and the current 
owner of the land, MAXXAM, Inc., has undertaken an aggressive program 
of clear-cutting in an effort to pay off high interest bond debt 
incurred to purchase the property.
  At the time MAXXAM engineered the takeover of Pacific Lumber, 
Pacific's land included about 16,000 acres of virgin old-growth 
redwood. Today, only about 6,600 acres of these ancient trees remain.
  The bill I am introducing today would extend the boundaries of the 
Six-Rivers National Forest in Humboldt County to include the core 5,000 
acres of the Headwaters old-growth redwood forest. These new boundaries 
would also include 39,000 acres of second-growth forest surrounding the 
old-growth core.
  The bill addresses the concerns of the timber communities of Humboldt 
County in several ways. First, over 88 percent of the land included in 
the new boundaries would continue to be available for logging on a 
sustainable yield basis. Second, primary consideration would be given 
to unemployed forest workers and fishermen in hiring people to do 
forest and stream restoration work. Third, payments in lieu of taxes 
are explicitly authorized for Humboldt County to compensate for any 
loss of timber tax revenues. Finally, a 10-year transition period 
payment is authorized to be made to Humboldt County. The payment would 
match, dollar for dollar, State of California timber yield tax revenues 
that would have been paid if logging had continued on the 12 percent of 
the land closed to logging under the bill.
  Because of my serious concern about avoiding deficit spending, the 
bill has been drafted to require the Forest Service to acquire land 
within the new boundary by land transfers or exchanges. The bill would 
further require that all exchange acquisitions made under the authority 
of the bill receive congressional approval.
  Direct purchases would be allowed only after exhaustion of all 
reasonably available alternatives. I am assured by the Congressional 
Budget Office and staff for the Senate Budget Committee that this bill 
will not be scored against the budget. There would be no takings under 
the bill.
  Commercial logging would be banned on lands acquired in the old-
growth core and management to enhance and sustain old-growth ecosystems 
would be required. Selective sustainable harvest of the second growth 
forests would be allowed to the extent consistent with maximizing the 
needs of old growth.
  Without Federal action MAXXAM's plunder will continue and an 
important part of our national heritage--among the oldest living things 
on Earth--will be lost forever. It is time to act.
  I urge my colleagues' support for this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2285

       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 ``Headwaters Forest Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) Redwoods are a significant national symbol and a 
     defining symbol of the State of California.
       (2) Old growth stands of redwood trees are a unique and 
     irreplaceable natural resource.
       (3) Most of the old growth forests of the United States 
     have been cut.
       (4) Less than 5 percent of the original 2,000,000 acres of 
     redwood trees of the West Coast of California remain 
     standing.
       (5) The redwood stands that remain are crucial to maintain 
     habitat needed for survival of species that are dependent on 
     old growth forests.
       (6) An example of an old growth redwood forest that is 
     crucial to the survival of species that are dependent on old 
     growth forests is the Headwaters Forest, California.
       (7) The Headwaters Forest is home to one of the three 
     largest populations in California of marbled murrelets, a 
     rare sea bird that nests only in coastal old growth trees and 
     such forest also provides habitat for the northern spotted 
     owl and native salmon stocks that spawn in the creeks of the 
     forest.
       (8) The other remaining stands of old growth forests and 
     old growth redwoods are unprotected and are under immediate 
     threat of being harvested without regard to a consideration 
     of their ecological importance and without the benefit of 
     Federal timber harvest guidelines.
       (9) Instead of basing decisions on sound forest management 
     practices, harvesters of old growth redwoods are cutting 
     significant amounts of old growth redwoods in the areas 
     proposed to be added to the National Forest pursuant to this 
     Act at a rate determined by the demands for the payment of 
     high interest on poor quality bonds.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to add certain 
     lands and waters to the Six Rivers National Forest, 
     California, and include a portion of such lands and waters in 
     the national wilderness preservation system--
       (1) to provide for the sound management and protection of 
     old growth redwood forest areas in Humboldt County, 
     California; and
       (2) to preserve and enhance habitat for the marbled 
     murrelet, the northern spotted owl, native salmon stocks, and 
     other species that are dependent on old growth forests.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Headwaters forest.--The term ``Headwaters Forest'' 
     means the Headwaters Forest, California.
       (2) Headwaters forest wilderness.--The term ``Headwaters 
     Forest Wilderness'' means the lands in the State of 
     California that are acquired pursuant to section 4 that are 
     within the areas generally depicted on the map referred to in 
     section 4(a) as the ``Headwaters Forest Wilderness 
     (Proposed)''.
       (3) Six rivers national forest addition.--The term ``Six 
     Rivers National Forest Addition'' means the area added to the 
     Six Rivers National Forest pursuant to section 4.

     SEC. 4. ADDITION TO SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST.

       (a) Extension of Boundaries.--
       (1) In general.--The exterior boundaries of the Six Rivers 
     National Forest in the State of California are hereby 
     extended to include the area comprising approximately 44,000 
     acres, as generally depicted on the map prepared by the 
     National Forest Service entitled ``Six Rivers National Forest 
     Addition proposed'', dated June 1993.
       (2) Filing of map.--A copy of the map referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for public 
     inspection in the office of the Forest Supervisor, Six Rivers 
     National Forest, and in the office of the Chief of the Forest 
     Service, Department of Agriculture.
       (b) Acquisition of Land.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Means of acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire lands 
     or interests in land within the exterior boundaries of the 
     Six Rivers National Forest Addition by donation, by purchase 
     with donated or appropriated funds, or by an exchange.
       (B) Excess and surplus federal property.--If the Secretary 
     identifies as suitable for an exchange under subparagraph 
     (A), excess or surplus Federal property, as determined under 
     the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
     (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.) in the form of lands that are under 
     the jurisdiction of any other department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States, the Secretary may take 
     such action as may be necessary to obtain the advance 
     approval of Congress to transfer the lands to the Secretary 
     for exchange. A transfer of such lands shall be made on the 
     condition that the department, agency, or instrumentality 
     that transfers the lands may not receive compensation for 
     such transfer.
       (C) Acquisition of lands outside of boundaries.--If a tract 
     of land is only partly within the boundaries referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary may acquire all or any 
     portion of the land outside of such boundaries in order to 
     minimize the payment of severance costs.
       (D) Exchange of lands acquired outside of boundaries.--Land 
     acquired pursuant to subparagraph (B) outside of the 
     boundaries referred to in subparagraph (A) may be exchanged 
     by the Secretary for non-Federal lands within such 
     boundaries.
       (E) Certain unexchanged lands.--The Secretary shall report 
     the acquisition of any land acquired pursuant to subparagraph 
     (B) that is not exchanged by the Secretary pursuant to 
     subparagraph (D) to the Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration. The Administrator shall dispose of such lands 
     pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
     Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
       (F) Requirements for acquisition of certain lands.--Lands, 
     and interests in lands, within the boundaries of the Six 
     Rivers National Forest Addition which are owned by the State 
     of California or any political subdivision thereof, may be 
     acquired only by donation or exchange.
       (2) Acceptance of funds.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may--
       (i) accept from the State of California funds in an amount 
     sufficient to cover the cost of acquiring lands within the 
     Six Rivers National Forest Addition pursuant to this Act; and
       (ii) notwithstanding any other provision of law, retain and 
     expend such funds for purposes of such acquisition.
       (B) Treatment of funds.--Any funds made available to the 
     Secretary pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be used for the 
     purposes specified in such paragraph without further 
     appropriation and without fiscal year limitation.
       (c) Land Acquisition Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and 
     implement a land acquisition plan.
       (2) Content of plan.--A plan developed under paragraph (1) 
     shall--
       (A) contain specific provisions addressing the time and 
     manner of the acquisition of lands under subsection (b);
       (B) in acquiring such lands, give first priority to the 
     acquisition of lands for the Headwaters Forest Wilderness;
       (C) include an analysis of practicable means of providing 
     for compensation for the acquisition of such lands other than 
     cash payments, including providing for the use or exchange of 
     certain excess or surplus property of the Federal Government 
     (as determined under the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949; 40 U.S.C. 471) that the Secretary shall 
     identify and list; and
       (D) acquire lands in accordance with the requirements of 
     paragraph (3).
       (3) Exhaustion of non-cash alternatives.--With respect to 
     the acquisition of a specific parcel of land pursuant to the 
     plan, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     use all practicable alternatives to cash payments from funds 
     appropriated to the Department of the Interior. With respect 
     to such acquisition, the Secretary may use such cash payments 
     only to the extent that such alternatives are not sufficient 
     to provide for such acquisition.
       (4) Distribution of plan.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     copy of the plan developed under this subsection to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 5. WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Designation.--In furtherance of the purposes of the 
     Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), lands in California 
     that are acquired under section 4 that are in the Headwaters 
     Forest Wilderness shall, upon acquisition, be considered 
     wilderness and a part of the National Wilderness Preservation 
     System.
       (b) Map and Legal Description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the inclusion 
     of any lands in the Headwaters Forest Wilderness, the 
     Secretary shall submit a copy of the map and a legal 
     description of the area so included with the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and with the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (2) Correction of clerical and typographical errors.--The 
     Secretary may correct clerical and typographical errors in a 
     map or legal description referred to in paragraph (1).
       (3) Filing of maps and boundary descriptions.--Each map and 
     legal description submitted to the committees of Congress 
     specified in paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for 
     public inspection in the Office of the Chief of the Forest 
     Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
       (c) Buffer Zones Not Intended.--
       (1) Statutory intent.--Nothing in this Act is intended to 
     require the creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones 
     around a wilderness area designated pursuant to this Act.
       (2) Permissibility of certain wilderness activities along a 
     boundary.--The fact that a nonwilderness activity or use may 
     be seen or heard from an area within a wilderness may not be 
     used alone to preclude such activities or uses adjacent to 
     the boundary of the wilderness area.
       (d) State Authority Over Fish and Wildlife.--In accordance 
     with section 4(d)(8) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1133(d)(8)), nothing in this Act shall be construed as 
     affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the State 
     of California with respect to wildlife and fish in any areas 
     designated by this Act as wilderness.

     SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the Secretary 
     acquires all or a significant portion of the lands identified 
     under the land acquisition plan developed under section 4(c), 
     the Secretary shall develop and implement a comprehensive 
     management plan for the Six Rivers National Forest Addition.
       (2) Content of plan.--The comprehensive management plan 
     developed under paragraph (1) shall prescribe measures for 
     the preservation of the existing old growth redwood 
     ecosystems in the Six Rivers National Forest Addition, 
     including the following:
       (A) With respect to the sale of timber--
       (i) prohibiting the sale of timber from lands within the 
     old growth redwood groves in the Six Rivers National Forest 
     Addition, as depicted generally on the map referred to in 
     section 4(a); and
       (ii) permitting the sale of timber in areas of the Six 
     Rivers National Forest Addition not specified in clause (i) 
     in a manner consistent with the purposes of this Act and any 
     other applicable Federal laws.
       (B) Restoration measures to restore lands affected by 
     timber harvests that occurred before the date of 
     implementation of the plan to mitigate watershed degradation 
     and the impairment of habitat for the marbled murrelet, 
     spotted owl, native salmon stocks, and other species 
     dependent on old growth forests.
       (3) Review and revision of plan.--
       (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), at such time as 
     the Secretary revises the applicable land and resource 
     management plan for the Six Rivers National Park that is in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act the Secretary 
     shall review and revise the comprehensive management plan 
     developed under this subsection.
       (B) The Secretary may revise the schedule for reviewing and 
     revising a comprehensive management plan developed under this 
     subsection if the Secretary determines that a more frequent 
     schedule of review and revision is necessary to meet the 
     purposes specified in section 2(b).
       (b) Applicable Laws and Policies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Chief of 
     the Forest Service, shall administer the lands acquired under 
     section 4(b) in accordance with the comprehensive management 
     plan developed under subsection (a), other applicable 
     requirements of this Act, and any other applicable law.
       (2) Wilderness.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), 
     subject to valid existing rights, any lands acquired and 
     designated as wilderness under section 5(a) shall be 
     administered in accordance with the comprehensive management 
     plan developed under subsection (a), other applicable 
     requirements of this Act, and any other applicable law, 
     including the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
       (3) Effective dates under wilderness act.--With respect to 
     lands designated as wilderness under section 5(a), any 
     effective date under the Wilderness Act (or any similar 
     reference) shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of 
     acquisition of such lands under section 4.
       (c) Employment Practices.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the Secretary shall take such action as may be 
     necessary to ensure that all work to implement the 
     restoration measures under the comprehensive management plan 
     developed under subsection (a) are performed by unemployed 
     forest workers and unemployed timber workers, unemployed 
     commercial fishermen, or other unemployed persons whose 
     livelihood depends on fishery and timber resources.
       (d) Agreements.--In order to facilitate the management of 
     the lands subject to the comprehensive management plan 
     developed under subsection (a), the Secretary, acting through 
     the Chief of the Forest Service, may enter into agreements 
     with the State of California for the management of lands 
     owned by the State or purchased with State assistance.

     SEC. 7. PAYMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

       (a) PILT.--Solely for purposes of payments made pursuant to 
     chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code, all lands added 
     to the Six Rivers National Forest pursuant to section 4 shall 
     be deemed to have been acquired for the purposes specified in 
     section 6904(a) of such title 31.
       (b) 10-Year Payment.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the annual appropriations and 
     subsection (c), for the 10-year period beginning on the date 
     of the acquisition of lands under section 4, the Secretary 
     shall make annual payments with respect to such acquired 
     lands to Humboldt County in the State of California in an 
     amount equal to the State of California Timber Yield Tax 
     revenues payable under section 38101 et seq. of the 
     California Revenue and Taxation Code (as in effect as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act) that would have been paid with 
     respect to such lands if the lands had not been acquired by 
     the United States, as determined by the Secretary pursuant to 
     this subsection.
       (2) Determination of amount of payments.--The Secretary 
     shall determine the amount of each annual payment made 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) on the basis of an assessment of a 
     variety of factors, including the following:
       (A) Timber actually sold during the year for which the 
     payment is based from comparable commercial forest lands of 
     similar soil type and slope.
       (B) A determination of appropriate timber harvest levels.
       (C) A consideration of comparable timber size class, age, 
     and quality.
       (D) Market conditions.
       (E) Applicable Federal laws and applicable laws of States 
     and political subdivisions of States.
       (F) The goal of achieving a sustainable, even-flow harvest 
     of renewable timber resources.
       (c) California Timber Yield Tax.--The amount of State of 
     California Timber Yield Tax payments paid to Humboldt County 
     for any year pursuant to the laws of California for timber 
     sold from lands acquired under this Act shall be deducted 
     from the sums to be paid to Humboldt County in such year 
     under subsection (b).
       (d) 25-Percent Fund.--Amounts paid under subsection (b) 
     with respect to any land in any year shall be reduced by any 
     amounts paid under the last paragraph in the matter under the 
     heading ``FOREST SERVICE.'' in the Act of May 23, 1908 (35 
     Stat. 360, chapter 192; 16 U.S.C. 500) which are attributable 
     to sales from the same lands in that year.

     SEC. 8. FOREST STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall study the lands within 
     the area comprising approximately 13,620 acres and generally 
     depicted as ``Study Area'' on the map referred to in section 
     4(a).
       (b) Requirements for Study.--In carrying out the study, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) analyze the potential of the area specified in 
     subsection (a) as an addition the Headwaters Forest; and
       (2) identify, with respect to the area--
       (A) the natural resources of such area, including wildlife 
     and fish and the location of old growth forests, old growth 
     redwood stands, habitat for threatened and endangered species 
     and populations (including the northern spotted owl and 
     marbled murrelet);
       (B) commercial timber volume;
       (C) recreational opportunities;
       (D) watershed management needs; and
       (E) the cost of acquiring the lands of the area.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare a report 
     that contains the findings of the study conducted under this 
     section and submit a copy of the report to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture of the 
     House of Representatives.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Coats):
  S. 2286. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for 
the use of certain highway funds for improvements to railway-highway 
crossings; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


         the rail grade crossing safety enhancement act of 1994

 Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rail 
Grade Crossing Safety Enhancement Act of 1994. This legislation will 
provide States flexibility in determining the best use of Federal 
transportation funds to reduce accidents and increase safety at 
railroad grade crossings. This bill is of great importance to many 
Hoosier citizens, to local communities, and to the Nation as a whole.
  Across America this year, several hundred people will be killed and 
thousands more injured as a result of vehicle-train collisions. While 
rail crossing accidents declined last year, the number of fatalities 
from these accidents increased in 1993 by 8.1 percent.
  In Indiana, however, both grade crossing accidents and fatalities are 
on the rise. In 1993, Hoosiers ranked fifth in the Nation in the number 
of fatalities with 36, and third in the total number of crossing 
accidents with 299.
  Recently, I took a 65-mile train trip across northern Indiana aboard 
a Q-500 CSX locomotive. As we traveled from the city of Garrett to the 
town of Teegarden, I saw what engineers witness every day--drivers 
ignoring warning signals and crossing the tracks within a few hundred 
feet of our oncoming train. This experience reaffirmed my view that 
rail crossing safety devices need to be improved, and that rail safety 
education must be a major part of any effort to reduce grade crossing 
accidents.
  To address this growing problem in my State, I began working with 
Transportation Secretary Pena and with the Indiana Department of 
Transportation [INDOT] to find solutions that will help States better 
use available funds to target Indiana's most dangerous crossings.
  I also asked the General Accounting Office earlier this year to study 
Indiana railroad crossing improvement programs and to evaluate how best 
to make necessary and long term safety improvements in Indiana.
  I am a cosponsor of S. 2127, the Railroad Grade Crossing Safety Act 
of 1994, a bill that seeks to promote rail safety by using existing 
resources to improve safety education, encourage private sector 
participation, enhance cooperation among agencies, and strengthen 
enforcement of rail crossing laws. This measure encourages public 
participation by including a toll-free phone number for the public to 
report equipment malfunctions at grade crossings.
  While these initiatives will help improve safety at grade crossings, 
I believe an additional change in transportation law is needed to 
further assist States using Federal dollars for safety.
  Title I, section 153 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 penalizes States that do not have in effect laws 
requiring seat belts for motorists and helmets for motorcycle riders. 
Under the provision, those States that do not have both seat belt and 
universal helmet laws must devote 1.5 percent of their Federal surface 
transportation funds to nonconstruction safety education programs. The 
percentage increases to 3 percent for fiscal year 1995 and in future 
fiscal years.
  I strongly support transportation safety and education programs, and 
believe motorists and motorcyclists alike should drive and ride 
defensively with proper protective gear. I also believe, however, that 
safety belt and helmet laws are best decided by State legislatures. 
While the authors of this provision were well-intentioned in their 
efforts to promote safety, I do not believe it is appropriate for the 
Federal Government to penalize States to force compliance on these 
matters.
  The ISTEA requirement to divert a portion of a State's highway 
construction funds to section 402 safety programs limits States' 
ability to apply these funds for other legitimate safety enhancing 
projects, namely, installation of protective warning devices at grade 
crossings.
  I believe railroad grade crossing improvements differ from other 
highway projects because they provide a visible and quantifiable return 
on investment. While some highway safety projects are designed 
primarily to increase a region's economic growth, the sole purpose of 
safety improvements at grade crossings is to reduce accidents and save 
lives.

  States with a high number of rail crossings and crossing accidents 
would benefit from the additional flexibility this bill provides. In 
1993, 40 percent of grade crossing accidents in the United States--and 
31 percent of fatalities--occurred in States that did not meet the 
Federal safety belt and helmet law requirement.
  With this legislation, a Governor could request that a portion of the 
diverted funds be used to install protective devices at hazardous rail 
crossings as part of a comprehensive, statewide rail safety improvement 
and rail safety education initiative.
  I want to emphasize that this legislation is limited in scope and is 
not intended to be a slippery slope for States to raid designated 
Federal safety education programs for construction projects. It does 
provide, however, flexibility for States to request that all or a 
portion of diverted Federal highway funds be available for one 
legitimate, safety-oriented, lifesaving purpose: To save lives through 
installation of more and better protective warning devices at dangerous 
rail crossings.
  The purpose of section 153 of ISTEA is to improve safety on our 
Nation's highways. Because the only conceivable purpose of rail 
crossing safety equipment is safety, I believe this measure conforms to 
the original spirit and intent of section 153.
  I recently received a letter from INDOT Commissioner P'Pool 
expressing his support for this legislation. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  Mr. President, concern about improving rail safety is growing in 
Congress, at the State level, and in our schools and communities. 
Partnerships between the public and private sectors--such as the 
valuable work being done by Operation Lifesaver, Inc., a nationwide 
nonprofit rail safety organization--have raised education and awareness 
about rail crossing safety. These joint efforts will continue to be a 
vital component in the campaign to eliminate accidents at rail grade 
crossings.
  It is my sincere hope that the Senate will support this important 
legislation. This bill is a cost-effective, common sense approach that 
will help eliminate a persistent and preventable problem. Rail 
transportation is, and will continue to be, an important part of our 
Nation's continued economic strength. This measure provides States an 
additional tool to reduce the number of needless deaths and injuries 
caused by motorists who try to beat the train.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             Indiana Department of


                                                Transportation

                                  Indianapolis, IN, June 23, 1994.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
      U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lugar: I have reviewed with great interest 
     your proposed bill allowing seatbelt/motorcycle helmet 
     sanction funds to be used for the improvement of railway-
     highway crossings. Clearly, you recognize that rail-highway 
     crossing safety is an issue of vital importance to the people 
     of the State of Indiana as well as the nation as a whole.
       I am pleased to inform you that INDOT is in full support of 
     your proposed legislation. We will be communicating with the 
     other members of Indiana's Congressional delegation to urge 
     them to join you in advocating this measure.
       Your bill is especially valuable because it not only 
     addresses the need to fund rail-highway improvements, but 
     also because it provides sensible funding flexibility in 
     concert with priorities recommended by the states.
           Sincerely,
                                      Frederick C. P'Pool.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 2287. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
simplify the assessment and collection of the excise tax on arrows; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                      arrow excise tax act of 1994

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will simplify the Internal Revenue Code regarding the imposition of the 
Federal excise tax on arrows. Given the complexities of today's tax 
code, meaningful simplification should be warmly welcomed.
  Mr. President, this bill will benefit manufacturers, wholesalers, 
retailers, assemblers, and, most importantly, the consumers of archery 
equipment. In 1993, there were nearly 3 million licensed bow and arrow 
hunters in the United States, including 28,000 from my home State of 
Utah. These figures exclude millions of individuals who enjoy archery 
as a hobby but do not hunt with a bow and arrow. Let me explain both 
the present status of this excise tax and why simplification is needed.
  Under section 4161(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, an excise tax of 
11 percent is imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or 
importer, of an arrow or an arrow's components parts and accessories. A 
complete arrow consists of various component parts, namely: a shaft, a 
point, a nock, and a vane. The arrow shaft is sold separate from the 
point, nock, and vane, which are attached to the shaft to make a 
complete arrow. The assembly of these parts into a finished arrow may 
take place at a wholesale manufacturing level, a distribution level, a 
retail level, or at the consumer level. Identifying the manufacturer 
for purposes of the tax is difficult because of the long distribution 
chain between the raw material supplier and the consumer. Under current 
law, anyone who manufacturers arrows, or the various parts of arrows, 
may be required to collect the excise tax.
  The current interpretation of the tax law on arrows has resulted in a 
great deal of confusion among retailers as well as among IRS field 
agents enforcing the law. Currently, local shops are subject to 
different interpretations of what is taxable. Ultimately, the tax falls 
on the last person in the chain to materially change the article before 
it is sold to the consumer. Unfortunately, several members of this 
chain may fit the definition of a manufacturer, and each is liable for 
the tax unless certain registration requirements are met and exemption 
forms filed.
  As you can see, Mr. President, the method for collecting the excise 
tax on arrows needs to be streamlined. My bill would change the 
imposition of the excise tax to fall on the component shafts, points, 
nocks, and vanes that are manufactured, rather than on the aggregated 
value of the assembled arrow. This is a significant change, but one 
that will greatly simplify the administration of the tax. Individual 
distributors, assemblers, and retail sellers of arrows or parts of 
arrows will no longer be responsible for collecting the excise tax. 
Only the manufacturers of these parts will bear the responsibility of 
the excise tax. Thus, identification of the manufacturer will be 
simpler and clearer. Industry representatives, who support these 
changes, have indicated to me that this simplification should increase 
compliance and therefore enhance revenues. Enforcement by the IRS 
should also be less difficult under this legislation.

  Mr. President, the result of this bill is a narrowing of the 
collection base. Instead of having thousands of distributors, 
retailers, or custom arrow shops being potentially liable for the tax 
as under the current law, about 65 companies would be liable under the 
bill. This simplification would save the IRS a considerable amount of 
time and money in enforcing the tax. It also would free smaller dealers 
and stores from the burden of computing and remitting the excise tax.
  The language in this bill accomplishes the needed simplification of 
this particular section of the tax code. One consequence of this change 
is the possibility that a higher excise tax rate may be needed to make 
the measure revenue neutral. The arrow manufacturing industry agrees 
that this simplification is not intended to decrease revenue to the 
Federal Government. I am working with the Joint Committee on Taxation 
to find a rate of tax that will make the end result revenue neutral. 
The bill, as introduced, Mr. President, includes an 11-percent tax 
rate, which is the same as under present law. It is my intention to 
adjust this rate, up or down, as needed, to keep this bill revenue 
neutral. I want to point out, however, that greater compliance should 
be achieved by having a much smaller number of entities responsible for 
the tax. This greater compliance, together with the savings realized 
from the reduced manpower requirements the IRS needs to enforce this 
tax, should combine to allow an equal or lesser tax rate than under 
current law. These factors should be considered when determining the 
revenue impact of this legislation.
  Mr. President, the amount of revenue we are talking about is around 
$13 million a year. These revenues are, by law, required to go to the 
Pittman-Robertson Fund, established by the Federal Aid to Wildlife 
Restoration Act. The proceeds of this fund go toward wildlife 
restoration and hunter education programs administered by the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service. The bulk of this fund is, in turn, passed onto 
the States to fund their own wildlife programs.
  Under current law, arrows made by native Americans are exempt from 
the Federal excise tax. The simplification bill I am introducing today 
would not remove or alter this exemption in any way.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that today, more than ever, 
we need to be mindful of the many burdens we are placing on small 
businesses and consumers through numerous Federal mandates and 
burdensome tax compliance measures. Businesses and consumers nationwide 
spend billions of dollars each year on tax compliance. Consumers, of 
course, pay for this compliance through higher retail prices for goods 
and services. We all know this money could be put to more productive 
use. Even though this bill is small in comparison to the immense tax 
code, I think it is right on target in terms of helping us to achieve 
tax simplification.
  Mr. President, this legislation is a beneficial modification to the 
tax code presented in a win-win framework. I hope it will be swiftly 
adopted, and I encourage my colleagues to support and cosponsor this 
bill.

                          ____________________