[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 45 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3804-S3812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S3804]]
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Lott, Mr. Bradley, Ms. 
        Moseley-Braun, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 529. A bill to provide, temporarily, tariff and quota treatment 
equivalent to that accorded to members of the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement [NAFTA] to Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                 the caribbean basin trade security act

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today with my colleagues Senators Mack, 
Lott, Bradley, Moseley-Braun, Hatch, and Grassley, I am introducing the 
Caribbean Basin Trade Security Act, a bill which will improve the 
economic and political security of the nations of the Caribbean Basin 
and the United States of America.
  In the last decade, the United States has supported and encouraged 
the extension of democracy in the Caribbean and Central America through 
enhanced trade and investment. Today, democracy rules in all of the 
nations of the Caribbean Basin, with the notable exception of Cuba. 
This year alone, eight nations in the region are holding free 
elections.
  For many nations political stability is by no means guaranteed. As we 
saw in the painful lesson of Haiti, economic and political instability 
in the Caribbean region can have tragic consequences for the people and 
enormous costs to the United States.
  It is of vital interest to America to see the Caribbean Basin grow 
economically. Continued economic expansion will help maintain political 
stability in the region. By improving economic conditions, we can deter 
illegal immigration, which taxes our resources and hurts those nations 
which lose some of their youngest and brightest citizens. Economic 
stability in the Caribbean Basin strengthens our defense against the 
trafficking of illegal drugs. An economically stable Caribbean Basin is 
a rich expanding market for United States goods.
  Yet at a time when economic growth is increasingly critical to the 
region, members of the Caribbean Basin Initiative [CBI] have faced a 
challenging climatic change in the area of trade. Since the 
implementation of the North American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA], 
lowered tariffs on Mexican imports have left the Caribbean Basin at a 
competitive disadvantage to Mexico. As an example, apparel assembly has 
been the most rapidly expanding job generator in the CBI region. Over 
77 percent of Central American and Caribbean textile and apparel 
exports to the United States are assembled, in whole or in part, from 
U.S. components. For an apparel item produced in a CBI country with 
materials from the United States, a 20-percent duty is charged on the 
value added by the off-shore assembly. Under NAFTA, this same item can 
be imported from Mexico duty-free.
  As a result of this disparity, the growth in apparel imports from 
Caribbean Basin nations has slowed markedly. There has been a virtual 
halt in new investment in the apparel sector in the CBI countries and 
the closing of over 100 plants during the last year alone, at an 
estimated loss of 15,000 jobs. Before NAFTA, the growth rates for 
apparel imports from Mexico and CBI nations were roughly equivalent at 
25 percent. But by 1994, the CBI growth rate dropped to 14.6 percent, 
while Mexico's surged to 48.8 percent.
  All signs indicate that this inequality will continue to expand if 
parity is not granted to the CBI nations. With the recent devaluation 
of the Mexican peso, labor and production costs in Mexico have 
decreased, and as a result, apparel companies have an added incentive 
to close shop in CBI nations and relocate to Mexico.
  As past Caribbean trade agreements have shown, the United States 
stands to be a the chief beneficiary of lowering trade barriers between 
the Caribbean Basin and the United States. The United States' trade 
balance with Caribbean Basin countries shifted dramatically following 
the implementation of the 1983 Caribbean Basin Initiative, from a 
deficit of $700 million in 1985. This has grown to a surplus of $2 
billion in 1993. From a $700 million deficit to a $2 billion surplus on 
a per capita basis, our surplus with the Caribbean has consistently 
outpaced our surplus with any other region of the world.
  This bill covers those manufactured products for which Mexico was 
granted preferential tariff levels, such as textiles and apparel. 
Currently, a large portion of U.S. textile and apparel imports are 
produced in the Far East, where few U.S. materials are used in the 
production process. U.S. manufacturers and workers stand to benefit 
from increased production of these items in the Caribbean Basin; new 
facilities will be more likely to utilize American materials, 
components, and machinery than does production in the Pacific rim. The 
American Apparel Manufacturers Association estimates that 15 jobs are 
created in the United States for every 100 apparel jobs created in CBI 
production facilities which use U.S. materials.
  Mr. President, at the Summit of the Americas in Miami this past 
December, Vice President Gore reiterated the administration's 
commitment to the realization of hemisphericwide free trade. The 
administration supports the goal of bringing CBI nations into NAFTA-
type free-trade agreements. The Caribbean Trade Security Act which we 
introduce today paves the way for the gradual association of the CBI 
nations into a closer bilateral or multilateral trade agreement with 
the United States. This legislation calls for a 6-year program after 
which the CBI nations will be allowed the opportunity to negotiate 
accession to NAFTA or to enter into independent free-trade agreements 
with the United States. The U.S. Trade Representative's office would 
make an assessment of the reforms made in each of the beneficiary 
countries and of the ability of each country to fulfill the obligations 
of the NAFTA. This checklist would include, among many criteria, the 
extent to which a country's markets are accessible, progress on 
macroeconomic reforms, and the protection of intellectual property 
rights.
  Mr. President, there is no region in the world with which the United 
States has a stronger and more mutually beneficial relationship than 
with our Caribbean and Central American neighbors. This bill will 
enhance our trading relationship with our neighbors and will strongly 
benefit the United States. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to 
consider and support this legislation as a demonstration of our 
commitment to encouraging economic stability and the principles of free 
markets and free enterprise. From those, the principles of democratic 
government and personal freedom will continue to strengthen.
  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. 529

       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 ``Caribbean Basin Trade 
     Security Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act represents a 
     permanent commitment by the United States to encourage the 
     development of strong democratic governments and revitalized 
     economies in neighboring countries in the Caribbean Basin;
       (2) the economic security of the countries in the Caribbean 
     Basin is potentially threatened by the diversion of 
     investment to Mexico as a result of the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement;
       (3) to preserve the United States commitment to Caribbean 
     Basin beneficiary countries and to help further their 
     economic development, it is necessary to offer temporary 
     benefits equivalent to the trade treatment accorded to 
     products of NAFTA members;
       (4) offering NAFTA equivalent benefits to Caribbean Basin 
     beneficiary countries, pending their eventual accession to 
     the NAFTA, will promote the growth of free enterprise and 
     economic opportunity in the region, and thereby enhance the 
     national security interests of the United States; and
       (5) increased trade and economic activity between the 
     United States and Caribbean Basin beneficiary countries will 
     create expanding export opportunities for United States 
     businesses and workers.
       (b) Policy.--It is therefore the policy of the United 
     States to offer to the products of Caribbean Basin 
     beneficiary countries tariff and quota treatment equivalent 
     to that accorded to products of NAFTA countries, and to seek 
     the accession of these beneficiary countries to the NAFTA at 
     the earliest possible date, with the goal of achieving full 
     [[Page S3805]] participation in the NAFTA by all beneficiary 
     countries by not later than January 1, 2005.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title:
       (1) Beneficiary country.--The term ``beneficiary country'' 
     means a beneficiary country as defined in section 
     212(a)(1)(A) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 
     U.S.C. 2702(a)(1)(A)).
       (2) NAFTA.--The term ``NAFTA'' means the North American 
     Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, 
     Mexico, and Canada on December 17, 1992.
       (3) Trade representative.--The term ``Trade 
     Representative'' means the United States Trade 
     Representative.
       (4) WTO and wto member.--The terms ``WTO'' and ``WTO 
     member'' have the meanings given such terms in section 2 of 
     the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

 TITLE I--RELATIONSHIP OF NAFTA IMPLEMENTATION TO THE OPERATION OF THE 
                       CARIBBEAN BASIN INITIATIVE

     SEC. 101. TEMPORARY PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE NAFTA PARITY TO 
                   BENEFICIARY COUNTRY ECONOMIES.

       (a) Temporary Provisions.--Section 213(b) of the Caribbean 
     Basin Economic Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Import-Sensitive Articles.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) through (5), 
     the duty-free treatment provided under this title does not 
     apply to--
       ``(A) textile and apparel articles which are subject to 
     textile agreements;
       ``(B) footwear not designated at the time of the effective 
     date of this title as eligible articles for the purpose of 
     the generalized system of preferences under title V of the 
     Trade Act of 1974;
       ``(C) tuna, prepared or preserved in any manner, in 
     airtight containers;
       ``(D) petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum, 
     provided for in headings 2709 and 2710 of the HTS;
       ``(E) watches and watch parts (including cases, bracelets 
     and straps), of whatever type including, but not limited to, 
     mechanical, quartz digital or quartz analog, if such watches 
     or watch parts contain any material which is the product of 
     any country with respect to which HTS column 2 rates of duty 
     apply; or
       ``(F) articles to which reduced rates of duty apply under 
     subsection (h).
       ``(2) NAFTA transition period treatment of certain textile 
     and apparel articles.--
       ``(A) Equivalent tariff and quota treatment.--During the 
     transition period--
       ``(i) the tariff treatment accorded at any time to any 
     textile or apparel article that originates in the territory 
     of a beneficiary country shall be identical to the tariff 
     treatment that is accorded during such time under section 2 
     of the Annex to a like article that originates in the 
     territory of Mexico and is imported into the United States;
       ``(ii) duty-free treatment under this title shall apply to 
     any textile or apparel article of a beneficiary country that 
     is imported into the United States and that--
       ``(I) meets the same requirements (other than assembly in 
     Mexico) as those specified in Appendix 2.4 of the Annex 
     (relating to goods assembled from fabric wholly formed and 
     cut in the United States) for the duty free entry of a like 
     article assembled in Mexico, or
       ``(II) is identified under subparagraph (C) as a 
     handloomed, handmade, or folklore article of such country and 
     is certified as such by the competent authority of such 
     country; and
       ``(iii) no quantitative restriction or consultation level 
     may be applied to the importation into the United States of 
     any textile or apparel article that--
       ``(I) originates in the territory of a beneficiary country,
       ``(II) meets the same requirements (other than assembly in 
     Mexico) as those specified in Appendix 3.1.B.10 of the Annex 
     (relating to goods assembled from fabric wholly formed and 
     cut in the United States) for the exemption of a like article 
     assembled in Mexico from United States quantitative 
     restrictions and consultation levels, or
       ``(III) qualifies for duty-free treatment under clause 
     (ii)(II).
       ``(B) NAFTA transition period treatment of nonoriginating 
     textile and apparel articles.--
       ``(i) Preferential tariff treatment.--Subject to clause 
     (ii), the United States Trade Representative may place in 
     effect at any time during the transition period with respect 
     to any textile or apparel article that--
       ``(I) is a product of a beneficiary country, but
       ``(II) does not qualify as a good that originates in the 
     territory of that country,

     tariff treatment that is identical to the preferential tariff 
     treatment that is accorded during such time under Appendix 
     6.B of the Annex to a like article that is a product of 
     Mexico and imported into the United States.
       ``(ii) Prior consultation.--The United States Trade 
     Representative may implement the preferential tariff 
     treatment described in clause (i) only after consultation 
     with representatives of the United States textile and apparel 
     industry and other interested parties regarding--
       ``(I) the specific articles to which such treatment will be 
     extended,
       ``(II) the annual quantity levels to be applied under such 
     treatment and any adjustment to such levels,
       ``(III) the allocation of such annual quantities among the 
     beneficiary countries that export the articles concerned to 
     the United States, and
       ``(IV) any other applicable provision.
       ``(iii) Adjustment of certain bilateral textile 
     agreements.--The United States Trade Representative shall 
     undertake negotiations for purposes of seeking appropriate 
     reductions in the quantities of textile and apparel articles 
     that are permitted to be imported into the United States 
     under bilateral agreements with beneficiary countries in 
     order to reflect the quantities of textile and apparel 
     articles of each respective country that are exempt from 
     quota treatment by reason of paragraph (2)(A)(iii).
       ``(C) Handloomed, handmade, and folklore articles.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), the United States Trade 
     Representative shall consult with representatives of the 
     beneficiary country for the purpose of identifying particular 
     textile and apparel goods that are mutually agreed upon as 
     being handloomed, handmade, or folklore goods of a kind 
     described in section 2.3 (a), (b), or (c) or Appendix 
     3.1.B.11 of the Annex.
       ``(D) Bilateral emergency actions.--The President may 
     take--
       ``(i) bilateral emergency tariff actions of a kind 
     described in section 4 of the Annex with respect to any 
     textile or apparel article imported from a beneficiary 
     country if the application of tariff treatment under 
     subparagraph (A) to such article results in conditions that 
     would be cause for the taking of such actions under such 
     section 4 with respect to a like article that is a product of 
     Mexico; or
       ``(ii) bilateral emergency quantitative restriction actions 
     of a kind described in section 5 of the Annex with respect to 
     imports of any textile or apparel article described in 
     subparagraph (B)(i) (I) and (II) if the importation of such 
     article into the United States results in conditions that 
     would be cause for the taking of such actions under such 
     section 5 with respect to a like article that is a product of 
     Mexico.
       ``(3) NAFTA transition period treatment of certain other 
     articles originating in beneficiary countries.--
       ``(A) Equivalent tariff treatment.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the tariff 
     treatment accorded at any time during the transition period 
     to any article referred to in any of subparagraphs (B) 
     through (F) of paragraph (1) that originates in the territory 
     of a beneficiary country shall be identical to the tariff 
     treatment that is accorded during such time under Annex 302.2 
     of the NAFTA to a like article that originates in the 
     territory of Mexico and is imported into the United States. 
     Such articles shall be subject to the provisions for 
     emergency action under chapter 8 of part two of the NAFTA to 
     the same extent as if such articles were imported from 
     Mexico.
       ``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) does not apply to any article 
     accorded duty-free treatment under U.S. Note 2(b) to 
     subchapter II of chapter 98 of the HTS.
       ``(B) Relationship to subsection (h) duty reductions.--If 
     at any time during he transition period the rate of duty that 
     would (but for action taken under subparagraph (A)(i) in 
     regard to such period) apply with respect to any article 
     under subsection (h) is a rate of duty that is lower than the 
     rate of duty resulting from such action, then such lower rate 
     of duty shall be applied for the purposes of implementing 
     such action.
       ``(4) Customs procedures.--The provisions of chapter 5 of 
     part two of the NAFTA regarding customs procedures apply to 
     importations of articles from beneficiary countries under 
     paragraphs (2) and (3).
       ``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) The term `the Annex' means Annex 300-B of the NAFTA.
       ``(B) The term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement entered into between the United States, Mexico, and 
     Canada on December 17, 1992.
       ``(C) The term `textile or apparel article' means any 
     article referred to in paragraph (1)(A) that is a good listed 
     in Appendix 1.1 of the Annex.
       ``(D) The term `transition period' means, with respect to a 
     beneficiary country, the period
      that begins on the date of the enactment of the Caribbean 
     Basin Trade Security Act and ends on the earlier of--
       ``(i) the date that is the 6th anniversary of such date of 
     enactment; or
       ``(ii) the date on which--
       ``(I) the beneficiary country accedes to the NAFTA, or
       ``(II) there enters into force with respect to the United 
     States and the beneficiary country a free trade agreement 
     comparable to the NAFTA that makes substantial progress in 
     achieving the negotiating objectives set forth in section 
     108(b)(5) of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
     Implementation Act.
       ``(E) An article shall be treated as having originated in 
     the territory of a beneficiary country if the article meets 
     the rules of origin for a good set forth in chapter 4 of part 
     two of the NAFTA or in Appendix 6.A of the Annex. In applying 
     such chapter 4 or Appendix 6.A with respect to a beneficiary 
     country for purposes of this subsection, no countries other 
     than the United States and beneficiary countries may be 
     treated as being Parties to the NAFTA.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The Caribbean Basin Economic 
     Recovery Act is amended--
       [[Page S3806]] (1) by amending section 212(e)(1)(B) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(B) withdraw, suspend, or limit the application of the 
     duty-free treatment under this subtitle, and the tariff and 
     preferential tariff treatment under section 213(b) (2) and 
     (3), to any article of any country,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and except as provided in section 213(b) 
     (2) and (3),'' after ``Tax Reform Act of 1986,'' in section 
     213(a)(1).

     SEC. 102. EFFECT OF NAFTA ON SUGAR IMPORTS FROM BENEFICIARY 
                   COUNTRIES.

       The President shall monitor the effects, if any, that the 
     implementation of the NAFTA has on the access of beneficiary 
     countries under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to 
     the United States market for sugars, syrups, and molasses. If 
     the President considers that the implementation of the NAFTA 
     is affecting, or will likely affect, in an adverse manner the 
     access of such countries to the United States market, the 
     President shall promptly--
       (1) take such actions, after consulting with interested 
     parties and with the appropriate committees of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, or
       (2) propose to the Congress such legislative actions,

     as may be necessary or appropriate to ameliorate such adverse 
     effect.

     SEC. 103. DUTY-FREE TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN BEVERAGES MADE WITH 
                   CARIBBEAN RUM.

       Section 213(a) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act 
     (19 U.S.C. 2703(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``chapter'' and inserting 
     ``title''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the duty-free 
     treatment provided under this title shall apply to liqueurs 
     and spirituous beverages produced in the territory of Canada 
     from rum if--
       ``(A) such rum is the growth, product, or manufacture of a 
     beneficiary country or of the Virgin Islands of the United 
     States;
       ``(B) such rum is imported directly from a beneficiary 
     country or the Virgin Islands of the United States into the 
     territory of Canada, and such liqueurs and spirituous 
     beverages are imported directly from the territory of Canada 
     into the customs territory of the United States;
       ``(C) when imported into the customs territory of the 
     Untied States, such liqueurs and spirituous beverages are 
     classified in subheading 2208.90 or 2208.40 of the HTS; and
       ``(D) such rum accounts for at least 90 percent by volume 
     of the alcoholic content of such liqueurs and spirituous 
     beverages.''.

                      TITLE II--RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. MEETINGS OF TRADE MINISTERS AND USTR.

       (a) Schedule of Meetings.--The President shall take the 
     necessary steps to convene a meeting with the trade ministers 
     of the beneficiary countries in order to establish a schedule 
     of regular meetings, to commence as soon as is practicable, 
     of the trade ministers and the Trade Representative, for the 
     purpose set forth in subsection (b).
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the meetings scheduled under 
     subsection (a) is to reach agreement between the United 
     States and beneficiary countries on the likely timing and 
     procedures for initiating negotiations for beneficiary 
     countries to accede to the NAFTA, or to enter into mutually 
     advantageous free trade agreements with the
      United States that contain provisions comparable to those in 
     the NAFTA and would make substantial progress in achieving 
     the negotiating objectives set forth in section 108(b)(5) 
     of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 3317(b)(5)).

     SEC. 202. REPORT ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS AND MARKET ORIENTED 
                   REFORMS IN THE CARIBBEAN.
       (a) In General.--The Trade Representative shall make an 
     assessment of the economic development efforts and market 
     oriented reforms in each beneficiary country and the ability 
     of each such country, on the basis of such efforts and 
     reforms, to undertake the obligations of the NAFTA. The Trade 
     Representative shall, not later than July 1, 1996, submit to 
     the President and to the Committee on Finance of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives a report on that assessment.
       (b) Accession to NAFTA.--
       (1) Ability of countries to implement nafta.--The Trade 
     Representative shall include in the report under subsection 
     (a) a discussion of possible timetables and procedures 
     pursuant to which beneficiary countries can complete the 
     economic reforms necessary to enable them to negotiate 
     accession to the NAFTA. The Trade Representative shall also 
     include an assessment of the potential phase-in periods that 
     may be necessary for those beneficiary countries with less 
     developed economies to implement the obligations of the 
     NAFTA.
       (2) Factors in assessing ability to implement nafta.--In 
     assessment the ability of each beneficiary country to 
     undertake the obligations of the NAFTA, the Trade 
     Representative should consider, among other factors--
       (A) whether the country has joined the WTO;
       (B) the extent to which the country provides equitable 
     access to the markets of that country;
       (C) the degree to which the country uses export subsidies 
     or imposes export performance requirements or local content 
     requirements;
       (D) macroeconomic reforms in the country such as the 
     abolition of price controls on traded goods and fiscal 
     discipline;
       (E) progress the country has made in the protection of 
     intellectual property rights;
       (F) progress the country has made in the elimination of 
     barriers to trade in services;
       (G) whether the country provides national treatment to 
     foreign direct investment;
       (H) the level of tariffs bound by the country under the WTO 
     (if the country is a WTO member);
       (I) the extent to which the country has taken other trade 
     liberalization measures; and
       (J) the extent which the country works to accommodate 
     market access objectives of the United States.
       (c) Parity Review in the Event a New Country Accedes to 
     NAFTA.--If--
       (1) a country or group of countries accedes to the NAFTA, 
     or
       (2) the United States negotiates a comparable free trade 
     agreement with another country or group of countries.

     the Trade Representative shall provide to the committees 
     referred to in subsection (a) a separate report on the 
     economic impact of the new trade relationship on beneficiary 
     countries. The report shall include any measures the Trade 
     Representative proposes to minimize the potential for the 
     diversion of investment from beneficiary countries to the new 
     NAFTA member or free trade agreement partner.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GREGG:
  S. 530. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
permit State and local government workers to perform volunteer services 
for their employer without requiring the employer to pay overtime 
compensation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


         THE STATE AND LOCAL VOLUNTEER PRESERVATION ACT OF 1995

 Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is my belief that the U.S. 
Government needs to foster voluntarism and philanthropy whenever it 
can. This is not how the system is currently working. On the contrary, 
overzealous regulation and oppressive Government agencies, such as the 
Department of Labor , stifle the efforts of citizens who want to 
volunteer some of their spare time to their community.
   For example: In a small town in New Hampshire a police officer was 
using his free time at night to train women in self-defense. He 
volunteered to teach this course and did so gladly. The Labor 
Department came onto the scene, however, and told the police department 
that they must either pay the officer for overtime or cancel the 
program. The program was canceled for lack of funds. The women in this 
small town no longer have the option of free classes in order to learn 
to protect themselves.
   This is a familiar story, not only to police departments across the 
country, but also to many other types of State and local agencies whose 
employees want to serve their community but are forbidden to by the 
Department of Labor. These incidents occurred because of the manner in 
which the Labor Department has decided to apply the Fair Labor 
Standards Act to those who willingly and gladly volunteer some of their 
spare time to public service. Such regulatory overreaching typifies 
what has gone wrong with the Federal Government, when public spirit and 
common sense lose out to narrow and misguided bureaucratic objectives.
   It is for these reasons that I am introducing the State and Local 
Volunteer Preservation Act of 1995, which amends the Fair Labor 
Standards Act to allow State and local public servants to volunteer 
their time to their employers if they choose to do so. This bill will 
extend to town clerks who want to help count ballots on election night; 
firefighters who want to help put out fires in their districts even if 
they are not on duty; police officers who want to work with police dogs 
or train women in self-defense; and many other public employees who 
want to volunteer their free time to their communities. We must act now 
to stop this encroachment on local voluntarism and allow our civic-
minded citizens to volunteer their time to their community, no matter 
what their occupation.
  I am pleased to announce that the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police [IACP] have endorsed this legislation. It is from police 
officers in New Hampshire that I first heard of this 
[[Page S3807]] problem, and it is from IACP that I learned that these 
regulations were causing difficulties not only in New Hampshire, but 
around the country.
   I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important 
measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill and additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 530

       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 ``State and Local Volunteer 
     Preservation Act''.

     SEC. 2. WAIVER OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION.

       Section 7(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 207(o)) is amended--
       (1) by redesigning paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) A public agency which is a State, political 
     subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental 
     organization shall not be required to pay an employee 
     overtime compensation or provide compensatory time under this 
     section for any period during which the employee--
       ``(A) volunteered to perform services for the public 
     agency; and
       ``(B) signed a legally binding waiver of such compensation 
     or compensatory time.''.
                                                                    ____

                                      International Association of


                                             Chiefs of Police,

                                    Alexandria, VA, March 8, 1995.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gregg: The International Association of Chiefs 
     of Police (IACP) has long been in support of amendments to 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act. Applying laws and regulations 
     initially designed for the private sector, to public sector 
     employers and employees has created difficulties that can 
     only be curbed by federal legislation. While IACP believes 
     that other additional amendments would be helpful, we 
     certainly support and endorse your proposed bill that would 
     clarify the compensation status of reserve officers who wish 
     to volunteer for public safety activities.
       If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate 
     to call.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John T. Whetsel,

                                               President. 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 531. A bill to authorize a circuit judge who has taken part in an 
in banc hearing of a case to continue to participate in that case after 
taking senior status, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  S. 532. A bill to clarify the rules governing venue, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  S. 533. A bill to clarify the rules governing removal of cases to 
Federal court, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                    TITLE 28 CORRECTION LEGISLATION

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am today introducing three bills, each of 
which would correct an inadvertent glitch in title 28 of the United 
States Code. I believe that all my colleagues will find these bills to 
be uncontroversial and nonpartisan. But they are nonetheless important, 
for they clean up problems that have surfaced in existing provisions.
  Let me briefly describe the three bills.
  My first bill would modify section 46(c) of title 28 to authorize a 
circuit judge who has taken part in an en banc hearing of a case to 
continue to participate in that case after taking senior status. 
Section 46(c) currently sets forth a general rule with one exception: 
it provides that only circuit judges in regular active service may sit 
on the en banc court, except that a senior circuit judge who was a 
member of the panel whose decision is being reviewed en banc may also 
be eligible to sit on the en banc court. This general rule makes good 
sense, for it ensures that it is the judges in regular active service 
who determine the law of the circuit. The exception also makes good 
sense, since it enables the court to avoid wasting the already-expended 
efforts of a judge.
  The current language of section 46(c), however, inadvertently creates 
a problem, for it appears to require a circuit judge in regular active 
service who has heard argument in an en banc case to cease 
participating in that case when that judge takes senior status. Courts 
of appeals have regarded themselves as bound to so construe the 
statute. See, e.g., United States v. Hudspeth, No. 93-1352--7th Cir. 
Oct. 28, 1994. This result is problematic, for it means that at the 
time of argument in an en banc case, it may be unclear who will be 
eligible to vote on the final disposition. Worse, there is the 
possibility that a judge might delay--or might be perceived as 
delaying--the release of an opinion until a member of the court takes 
senior status, in order to affect the outcome. As the seventh circuit's 
discussion in Hudspeth makes clear, there is every reason to believe 
that this consequence was inadvertently produced by Congress. The 
Judicial Council of the seventh circuit has written to me recommending 
that this provision be reconsidered. Other courts have also faced 
difficulties with this provision. My bill would correct this problem.
  My second bill adopts a proposal by the Judicial Conference of the 
United States to correct a flaw in a venue provision, section 1391(a) 
of title 28. Section 1391(a) governs venue in diversity cases. Like 
section 1391(b), which governs venue in Federal question cases, section 
1391(a) has a fallback provision--subsection (3)--that comes into play 
if neither of the other subsections confers venue in a particular case. 
See C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 262--5th ed. 1994--Specifically, 
subsection (3) provides that venue lies in ``a judicial district in 
which the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction at the time 
the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action 
may otherwise be brought.''
  The defect in this fallback provision is that it may be read to mean 
that all defendants must be subject to personal jurisdiction in a 
district in order for venue to be lie. Under this reading, there would 
be cases in which there would be no proper venue. In short, the 
fallback provision would not always work. Such a result is undesirable 
and appears to be the inadvertent product of a rather tortuous drafting 
history. See C. Wright, supra, at 262 n. 35.
  My bill would eliminate the ambiguity in subsection (3) by specifying 
that venue would be proper under this fallback provision in a district 
in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. This 
language would track the language in the parallel fallback provision in 
section 1391(b). Again, I note that the Judicial Conference has 
endorsed this change.
  My third bill would remedy a problem that has arisen in the 
procedures governing remand to State court of cases that have been 
removed to Federal court. Section 1447(c) of title 28 provides that a 
motion to remand a case on the basis of any defect in removal procedure 
must be made within 30 days of the filing of the notice of removal. It 
appears clearly to have been the intent of Congress that the phrase 
``any defect in removal procedure'' would encompass any defect other 
than lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Section 1447(c) specifies 
that no time limit applies to motions to remand based on lack of 
subject matter jurisdiction. But a few courts have taken a more narrow 
reading, and a circuit split exists. See C. Wright, supra, at 249-250 
and nn. 3-6. My bill would make clear that a 30-day limit applies to 
all motions to remand except those based on lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 534. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide 
authority for States to limit the interstate transportation of 
municipal solid waste, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


             interstate waste and flow control legislation

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that I 
believe will solve the longstanding problem of the interstate disposal 
of solid waste, as well as address the more recent issue involving the 
use of flow control measures to control the disposal of these 
materials.
  For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with the issue, the 
controversy surrounding the interstate transportation of solid waste is 
one that the Senate has been considering since before 1990. Today, 47 
States export approximately 14 to 15 million tons of solid waste per 
year for disposal in other States. While short distance waste exports 
have been occurring for 
[[Page S3808]] some time, the development of a longhaul waste transport 
market has been a more recent development. With tipping fees of $140 
per ton in some large cities, compared with a national average of 
between $30 and $50, there is an incentive for municipalities to 
transport these wastes by truck and rail to distant States for 
permanent disposal.
  Those States that have recently been the recipients of large amounts 
of long-haul wastes have raised a concern that their limited capacity 
for solid waste disposal is being filled, and that they have become the 
dumping ground for someone else's waste problems. Over the last few 
years, 37 States have passed laws to prohibit, limit, or severely tax 
waste that enters their jurisdiction. However, almost all of these laws 
have been stuck down for violating the commerce clause of the 
Constitution. While there has been some recent easing of disposal 
capacity nationwide, there are still significant concerns about the 
future consequences of the long-haul system.
  To address these concerns Congress, as well as the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, in particular, have been attempting to strike a 
balance between importing and exporting States. Last year, the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am a member, 
unanimously reported S. 2345 to address this problem. A number of 
Members, both on and off the committee, including Senators Coats, 
Specter, Lautenberg, Moynihan, and others, took a very active role in 
attempting to develop a compromise that importing and exporting States 
could live with. While the Senate easily passed this compromise by 
voice vote on September 30, 1994, time ran out before this issue could 
be finally resolved.
  Today I am offering legislation that is cosponsored by Senator 
Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
that will address both interstate waste and flow control. Title I of 
our bill, which pertains to interstate waste, is essentially the same 
package that the Senate overwhelmingly supported last year. There was 
no opposition that I was aware of. It is our hope that we will have 
similar support for this legislation so that we can quickly lay this 
issue to rest.
  The issue of flow control is another trashrelated concern that has 
been brought before Congress as a result of Supreme Court action. In 
essence, flow control is a mechanism that has been utilized by a 
variety of towns and cities to mandate that solid waste be disposed of 
at facilities designated by that entity. In May 1994, the Supreme 
Court, in the decision of Carbone versus Clarkstown, struck down a New 
York flow control ordinance as a violation of the commerce clause. For 
better or worse--depending on your point of view--the Carbone decision 
essentially halted efforts nationwide to enact flow control measures. 
Cities and towns that utilized flow control authority prior to Carbone 
assert that it allowed them to create integrated waste control systems, 
including activities such as recycling, composting, and hazardous waste 
collection--that would not have been possible without this authority.
  Since 1980, over $20 billion in municipal bonds have been issued to 
pay for the construction of solid waste facilities utilizing flow 
control. In the wake of Carbone, there has been a strong concern raised 
that without prompt action by the Congress to authorize some flow 
control, many cities and towns that let these bonds are in danger of 
having these investments downgraded--some say even turned into junk 
bonds. This concern was underscored by a recent decision of Moody's 
Investors Service to downgrade the waste bond rating of five New Jersey 
counties to below investment grade status. In addition to bond-related 
concerns, the proponents also assert that the failure of Congress to 
provide flow control authority will leave State and local governments 
defenseless in their efforts to control the export of interstate waste.
  It must be noted, however, that flow control does not have universal 
support. It does not really have this Senator's support. A number of 
mayors and local officials, such as Bret Schundler, the mayor of Jersey 
City, NJ, have gone on record in strong opposition to the use of flow 
control. They argue essentially that flow control limits the ability of 
local government to find low-cost, environmentally sound disposal 
alternatives, and results in exorbitant and unnecessarily high tipping 
fees.
  In addition to these arguments, a recently released EPA report 
entitled ``Flow Controls and Municipal Solid Waste,'' concludes that 
not only is there ``no empirical data showing that flow control 
provides more or less protection'' to human health and environment. The 
report then goes on to say that there is no evidence that ``flow 
controls are essential either for the development of new solid waste 
capacity or for the long-term achievement of State and local goals for 
source reduction, reuse, and recycling.''
  So, last week, the Environmental and Public Works Subcommittee on 
Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment, which I chair, of course, 
held an extensive hearing that focused on two issues: Both flow control 
and interstate waste. During that hearing, we heard testimony from New 
Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman and others, including 
Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, who called for the enactment of 
very broad flow control authority for municipalities in States well 
into the future. Others, including the Natural Resources Defense 
Council and Competitive Enterprise Institute requested that the Senate 
enact no flow control whatever.
  My subcommittee also heard from the Public Securities Association 
which outlined the domino effect that might occur if Congress were to 
fail to authorize any flow control for those municipalities that have 
already let bonds under the presumption that they had the authority to 
flow control. They assert that not only would a failure to enact this 
authority affect the value of the existing flow control bonds, but it 
would also have a detrimental effect on the ability of the 
municipalities to let any bonds in the future.
  So, the language that Senator Chafee and I are today introducing will 
protect those municipalities that impose flow control pursuant to a 
law, ordinance, regulation, or any other legally binding provision 
prior to May 15, 1994, prior to the Carbone decision, and which 
implemented flow control by designating a flow control facility prior 
to that date. In addition, this bill will protect those municipalities 
that imposed flow control prior to May 15, 1994, but which were in the 
midst of constructing such a flow control facility. Thus, in other 
words, if the municipality had its permits to construct and had signed 
contracts to build the facilities, had let revenue bonds, or had 
received its operating permit prior to May 15, 1994, it would also be 
able to take advantage of the grandfather provision and the protection 
that we are providing in our bill.
  Our bill also provides sufficient flexibility so that the facilities 
that need to retrofit or modify their equipment to meet environmental 
or safety requirements, or if the facility needs to expand on the land 
that they own and that it is covered by their permit, they will be 
allowed to do so.
  But it does not stop there Mr. President. Our bill is intended to 
provide a sense of finality to this issue. Precisely 30 years after 
this legislation is adopted, no further flow control measures will be 
allowed. Zero, none.
  I want to be clear: I am opposed to flow control. I think the 
interstate commerce clause is exactly correct and the court's ruling 
was correct. I am not convinced that communities need to have broad 
flow control authority in order to ensure the proper disposal of their 
solid wastes. Nonetheless, I am aware of and I am sympathetic to and 
understand the position of those cities and towns that need this 
grandfathering so they can pay off the bonds that were let, based on 
the presumption that they had this authority. They thought they had the 
authority, they let the bonds, and they are kind of in the middle in a 
whipsaw, what to do. And nothing has been done since May 15, 1994, 
except the bonds have been going down in value.
  So, under our bill, those municipalities that took action on this 
presumption will be protected. It is a grandfather protection. It ends 
in 30 years. Why 30 years? Because that is as long as any bonds that we 
know of are out there. It is a compromise.
  [[Page S3809]] Frankly, it is not my philosophical view. I do not 
believe that there ought to be flow control, but I do understand that 
things happen. Sometimes people believe they are doing the right thing, 
think they have the authority to do the right thing, and they get 
caught in the middle.
  I believe this legislation strikes a fair balance in accommodating 
those who are strong proponents of States' rights and those who are 
strong proponents of the free market system.
  Now, there are some who will probably try to amend this legislation, 
perhaps here on the floor or in committee, who will take the position 
that the States should have the total right to enact flow control any 
way they want to do that. But that is not the free market system. I am 
surprised, somewhat, by some of my colleagues who take that position 
who claim to be free marketeers.
  So, in essence, what I tried to do in order to help those people who 
immediately need the help, is to craft this compromise, to grandfather 
the situations where there is an urgency here, where there has been 
some money expended, through the processes that I indicated, letting 
the bonds, or permitting, or construction work, or contracts, allow 
that to be grandfathered, and then at the end of that period of time, 
we go back to no flow control, we go back to interstate commerce.
  Now, I am not convinced that the free market could not fully address 
this issue of disposing of our Nation's solid waste, but I am willing 
to make this accommodation.
  Now, again, let me repeat, so that there is no misunderstanding, I do 
not support systemwide flow control, and I am strongly opposed to any 
prospective flow control. I feel that our bill has struck the balance, 
and I do not feel we need to go any further. Grandfathering is there. 
It ends in 30 years from the date of the enactment of the legislation.
  Those municipalities that are in danger of having their bonds 
downgraded have requested that we move quickly to resolve this issue. 
That is exactly what I have been doing. It is the first piece of 
legislation that we worked on and marked up. There are many other 
pieces of legislation out there that are very critical, that are very 
high priority to me and to the Senate, including Superfund. We put this 
first in order to accommodate these communities, these municipalities, 
who have this problem.
  I would hope that those people who might have a stronger view that we 
ought to have total flow control would understand that I have done this 
in an effort to help those communities and not get this thing into an 
extended debate, an extended controversy, to try to go all the way over 
to systemwide flow control and allow what I believe to be a reasonable 
compromise to pass.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation. It is very 
carefully thought out. Senator Chafee was immensely helpful and 
supportive. Senator Coats did a lot of work on interstate transfer of 
waste. He was very helpful, of course, and others. I hope that we will 
get support for this legislation, that it will pass quickly, as we do 
have kind of an emergency situation out there with these 
municipalities.
  But I would just say to my colleagues, if we wind up in a huge floor 
fight, either out here on the floor or perhaps a fight in committee 
which delays this, then I think we are making a serious mistake in not 
helping those communities who really need the help.
  Again, this is a big step for me because I believe that there should 
not be flow control, as I indicated. And had this situation not 
developed where we had these municipalities who had let these bonds, we 
would be out here with legislation that basically says there would be 
no flow control.
  So I am doing this as a compromise to help those communities and 
municipalities in need. Hopefully, people will understand that and this 
legislation will be promptly passed by the Senate, sent to the House 
and signed by the President and become law.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I join the Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Smith] in introducing legislation dealing with 
interstate waste and flow control authority. I want to acknowledge the 
Senator's effort. As the chairman of the Environment Committee's 
Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, the Senator 
from New Hampshire has taken the lead in drafting this legislation, 
targeting issues that went unresolved last year.
  As you may recall, at the close of the last session of Congress, a 
so-called compromise on interstate waste and flow control was approved 
by the House and sent to the Senate on the last day of the session. I 
had real concerns with the bill. We could have approved that bill if 
there had been time for debate and an opportunity to consider 
amendments. But that was not the case. It was a take-it-or-leave-it 
proposition, and for a number of reasons, I could not take it.
  The legislation was broad in scope, both on interstate and flow 
control. In my view, unlike the Senate-passed bill on interstate 
waste--which was a fair accommodation of importing and exporting 
States' interests--the House-passed bill tilted the scales out of 
balance in favor of importing States. Rhode Island, I might add, is a 
waste exporter. On flow control--which was not addressed in the Senate 
bill--the House bill favored local governments to the detriment of 
consumers and small business.
  My major concerns with the House-passed bill revolved around three 
key issues, one on interstate and two on flow control.
  On interstate, the primary problem was the inclusion of language 
creating a statutory presumption against the lawful shipment of waste 
across the State lines. On flow control, the House-passed bill granted 
authority not only to existing facilities with outstanding bond debt--
the Public Securities Association's primary concern--but also to 
facilities with little or no financial exposure. In addition, the 
language would have resurrected Rhode Island's flow control authority--
even though a Federal district court blocked that law in 1992, and the 
State has no need for the authority.
  Now, to the legislation. For the record, Senator Smith chaired a 
Waste Control Subcommittee hearing on March 1, 1995, to solicit 
testimony on interstate waste and flow control from the various 
interest groups, including the National Association of Counties, the 
National Federation of Independent Business, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, and waste haulers. In addition, Senators Coats and 
Cohen as well as Representative Chris Smith and Gov. Christine Todd 
Whitman testified before the committee. There is great interest in 
moving this legislation early in the session, and we intend to do so.
  The legislation is straightforward. Title I deals exclusively with 
the interstate transport of waste. Title II focuses on the issue of 
flow control.
  Let me turn to title I. On interstate shipments, this bill we are 
introducing is similar to S. 2345, legislation that was approved 
unanimously by the Senate last year. I want to make it clear that the 
bill before us deals exclusively with the transport, across State 
borders, of municipal solid waste--commonly known as garbage or trash. 
It purposely avoids imposing restrictions on the interstate transport 
of hazardous waste, industrial waste, or even construction and 
demolition debris, which create a different set of problems, and would 
require markedly different approaches.
  The interstate conflict is a symptom of a larger solid waste problem. 
Our society is generating more and more waste. We are a throw-away 
society. As a result, our landfills have become precious resources. 
What's more, communities all across the country are finding it 
exceedingly difficult to site new capacity, even for waste generated 
within their borders.
  Listen to these statistics. In the United States, we generate about 
180 million tons of municipal waste each year. Forty-three States ship 
some 15 million tons out of State each year. Forty-two States also 
import some waste. Nearly every State relies on at least one other 
State to handle some portion of their waste. The vast majority of these 
shipments are noncontroversial, so-called border waste which has been 
traveling short distances over State lines for years. We do not want to 
upset these arrangements unnecessarily.
  The real problem arises when some States, such as Pennsylvania, 
Indiana, and Ohio are forced to accept far more 
[[Page S3810]] waste than they want. We need a three-part strategy to 
solve this problem. First, we must reduce the amount of waste we 
produce. Second, we need to recycle more of the waste that is produced. 
And third, States and localities must be given some additional 
authority to control the disposal of waste in a safe and 
environmentally sound manner.
  Toward this end, the bill we are considering would give States 
limited authority to impose restrictions on municipal wastes that are 
imported from other States. Subject to certain exceptions, this 
legislation allows a Governor to prohibit shipments of out-of-State 
waste if the affected local government submits a request to the 
Governor. In addition, a Governor could unilaterally freeze out-of-
State waste at 1993 levels at certain landfills and incinerators.
  The legislation, I must admit, is complicated because it attempts to 
accommodate the interests of many Members and because it recognizes 
that interstate waste is not an issue in just one or two States. In 
developing this bill, the chairman has struggled to provide States some 
control over imported garbage without unduly limiting interstate 
commerce.
  In addressing the problem, the chairman has tried to find a solution 
that will reduce unwanted imports, and yet give exporting States some 
time to reduce the amount of waste generated, to increase recycling, 
and to site new, in-State capacity. I believe the legislation we are 
considering, while far from perfect, is equitable, and will provide a 
responsible solution to the problem.
  To be sure, our work on this issue, as well as on flow control, has 
just begun. Senator Smith and I are ready to work with the committee 
and other interested Members of the Senate to craft a bill that can be 
approved by both Senate and House.
  Now to title II on flow control. Flow control is the method used to 
route a community's solid waste to designated, often publicly financed, 
disposal facilities, with little or no competition from the private 
sector. Flow control laws, because of their potential interference in 
interstate
 commerce, have been overturned in several Federal courts, most 
recently last May at the Supreme Court in Carbone versus Clarkstown. 
The issue is controversial both for the private waste market and the 
many communities that have financed waste facilities in reliance upon 
flow control.

  The implications of congressional action on flow control have the 
potential to resonate throughout the economy. Flow control laws have 
been widely used in recent years, often as a tool to guarantee that 
projected amounts of waste and revenues will be received at waste 
management facilities funded by revenue bonds. In fact, since 1980, 
over $24 billion in municipal bonds have been issued to pay for the 
construction of solid waste facilities.
  In the overwhelming majority of cases, investors were assured that 
the projected amounts of waste would be delivered to the facility 
because flow control laws were in place. In some cases, the local 
government agreed to bear the risk that flow control laws would be 
found to be unconstitutional. They have enforceable put-or-pay 
contracts. Now, unless a solution is developed, affected governments' 
bond ratings may be at risk, and local residents will have to pay for 
services they are not receiving.
  In developing a solution, however, we must take into consideration 
not only the interests of local taxpayers and bondholders but also 
consumers and small business who may get a better deal in the absence 
of flow control laws. Furthermore, I have great concern generally with 
the anticompetitive nature of flow control.
  The bill we are introducing today strikes a balance, protecting past 
community investments based on flow control without perpetuating an 
anticompetitive market going forward. Under our bill, each State and 
each political subdivision may exercise flow control authority if that 
authority is imposed pursuant to law or other legally binding provision 
and has been implemented by designating facilities that were 
constructed after the effective date of the provision and prior to May 
15, 1994. In addition, the bill provides a grandfather provision, for 
communities that have made a substantial commitment toward the 
designation of a waste management facility, although not yet 
constructed, prior to May 15, 1994. Finally, the bill includes a flow 
control authority sunset provision effective 30 years after date of 
enactment.
  Mr. President, I believe this legislation represents a good faith 
effort to bring the various parties together on the issues of 
interstate waste and flow control. It provides additional authority to 
waste importers without overriding the needs of waste exporting 
States--it protects past community financial investments and yet 
provides opportunities for the private sector. So, I commend the 
Senator from New Hampshire and look forward to working with him and the 
other members of the committee to report this legislation in an 
expeditious fashion.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 537. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


     the alaska native claims settlement act amendments act of 1995

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill 
to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. This 
legislation is noncontroversial and fully supported by the Alaska 
Federation of Natives. The bill was passed by the House of 
Representatives last Congress. The Senate Energy Committee held 
hearings and approved a similar bill. Unfortunately, it did not pass 
the full Senate last year because of an issue unrelated to this 
legislation.
  The enactment of the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act [ANCSA] was a 
landmark event in Alaska's history. The land grants and compensation 
provided to Alaska Natives under ANCSA was unprecedented and has proven 
to be a successful alternative to the reservation system in the lower 
48 States. ANCSA created business corporations based on existing Alaska 
Native communities and the corporations are responsible for investing 
and managing assets provided under ANCSA for the benefit of the all-
Native shareholders. ANCSA created a system that allows Alaska Natives 
to become self-sufficient.
  While I am happy to say that the system created under ANCSA is 
working, there are some changes that are sometimes necessary to make 
sure the intent of ANCSA is carried out. This bill corrects existing 
technical problems with ANCSA and the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act [ANILCA]. An identical bill was introduced in the 
House by my colleague from Alaska.
  The legislation is designed to resolve specific problems, for example 
one section of the bill will make it possible for the Caswell and 
Montana Creek Native groups to receive lands approved by a February 
1976 agreement and finally fulfill their land entitlement under ANCSA. 
Another provision would allow Chugach Native Corp. to select a specific 
tract of land at the edge of their own current boundaries. Included in 
this bill there are eight technical amendments to resolve specific 
issues. Another section would make certain veterans from the Vietnam 
era eligible for land allotments under ANCSA.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that the committee which last year 
agreed that all of these items were noncontroversial will retain their 
spirit of cooperation so that this legislation will be able to move 
early in this session.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD:
  S. 538. A bill to reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline 
under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of, a 
hydroelectric project in Oregon, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


              talent irrigation district license extension

 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation which allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
grant Talent Irrigation District, in Jackson County, OR, an extension 
of its hydro project construction commencement deadline.
  The project is a 2.4-megawatt powerhouse, planned as an attachment to 
the existing Emigrant Dam, on the Emigrant River in southern Oregon. 
Low water conditions in the Emigrant 
[[Page S3811]] River, resulting from 8 years of continuous drought in 
Oregon, have caused the irrigation district to reevaluate the operating 
plan of the project. I believe granting an extension in this case will 
enable local officials to better configure this project to maximize 
power production and fish enhancement in light of the reduced water 
flows in the Emigrant River.
  Construction of the existing Emigrant Dam was completed in 1959. It 
has a structural height of 176 feet and impounds 39,000 acre feet of 
water, which is delivered to about 8,000 users, irrigating 
approximately 30,000 acres.
  On May 24, 1989, FERC issued a construction license to the Talent 
Irrigation District for the hydro project extension at Emigrant Dam. 
The license required construction to commence within 2 years--by May 
24, 1991. In January 1991, the district requested and received a 2-year 
extension of the construction commencement deadline, until May 24, 
1993, citing the need to consult further with the Bureau of Reclamation 
and continue negotiating a power sales agreement.
  All negotiations were completed by April 1992, but the low flow 
conditions in the Emigrant River caused the Talent Irrigation District 
to postpone the commencement of construction and reevaluate the hydro 
project's proposed operating plan. When the 2-year extension expired on 
May 24, 1993, FERC canceled the license.
  In order to commence with this project, the district needs its 
license reinstated and additional time to carefully evaluate the 
operating plan for the Emigrant hydro project and adjust it to perform 
better under low water conditions, both for power production and fish 
enhancement. The Federal Power Act, however,
 only allows FERC to grant one 2-year extension to the district, which 
it granted in 1991. Therefore, legislation is required to authorize 
FERC to extend the deadline further.

  The legislation I am introducing today reinstates the Talent 
Irrigation District license and grants the district up to 4 years to 
begin construction.
  I look forward to working with members of the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee to ensure that this proposal receives 
prompt and thorough attention.
  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. 538

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

     SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF PERMIT EXTENSION DEADLINE.

       Notwithstanding the expiration of the permit and 
     notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of 
     the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise 
     apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
     numbered 7829, the Commission shall, at the request of the 
     licensee for the project, reinstate the permit effective May 
     23, 1993, and extend the time period during which the 
     licensee is required to commence the construction of the 
     project to the date that is 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S. 539. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a tax exemption for health risk pools; to the Committee on Finance.


                   THE HEALTH RISK POOLS ACT OF 1995

 Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to grant Federal tax exemption to State health risk pools. The purpose 
of a health risk pool is to provide health and accident insurance 
coverage to individuals who, because of health conditions, would 
otherwise not be able to secure health insurance coverage.
  Since 1976, 28 States have enacted legislation establishing a health 
insurance pool aimed at protecting uninsurable and high-risk 
individuals. Most of the pools were established in the last 4 years.
  For example, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Risk Pool Association 
Act was enacted by the Mississippi State Legislature during the 1991 
legislative session and became effective April 15, 1991. At that time 
Mississippi became the 25th State to enact such legislation.
  The Comprehensive Health Insurance Risk Pool Association was created 
to implement such a health insurance program. Members of the 
association include insurance companies and nonprofit health care 
organizations which are authorized to write direct health insurance 
policies and contracts supplemental to health insurance policies in 
Mississippi. The association also includes third party administrators 
who are paying and processing health insurance claims for Mississippi 
residents.
  Over the past 3 years, the association has issued medical insurance 
policies to approximately 900 Mississippians. The association is funded 
by premiums paid by policyholders and quarterly assessments against 
members of the association. There is no public funding--State or 
Federal--involved.
  Currently, about 120,000 individuals nationwide are a member of a 
State pool. Nationally, there are an additional 1 to 3 million people 
who are uninsured and uninsurable, and who could be eligible for 
inclusion in a State pool.
  Unfortunately, several State health risk pools have applied for, and 
have been denied, exemption from Federal taxation under International 
Revenue Code sections 501(c)(4) and/or 501(c)(6). Generally, the 
Internal Revenue Service's [IRS] rationale for such denial has been 
that the sole activity of the health risk pools is the provision of 
health insurance for individual policyholders. The IRS perceives, 
incorrectly in my view, health risk pools as a regular business 
ordinarily carried on for profit, which primarily provide commercial 
type insurance. Moreover, the IRS takes the position that health risk 
pools are primarily serving the private interests of its members and 
not the common interest of the community as a whole.
  In its decision to deny the State of Mississippi's Comprehensive 
Health Insurance Risk Pool Association exemption from Federal income 
tax, the Internal Revenue Service in a letter dated August 16, 1993, 
states:

       For purposes of section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code, an organization providing insurance for its members or 
     other individuals, except in very limited instances, either 
     is considered to be engaged in an activity that is an economy 
     or convenience in the conduct of members' businesses because 
     it relieves the members of obtaining insurance on an 
     individual basis, or is a regular business of a kind 
     ordinarily carried on for profit. In either case, the 
     activity of providing insurance is not considered to be an 
     exempt activity under section 501(c)(6) and, if it is the 
     primary activity of the organizations, exemption under 
     section 501(c)(6) is precluded pursuant to section 
     1.501(c)(6)-1 of the regulations.

  However, health risk pools have been created by statute in several 
States to serve a public function of relieving the hardship of those 
who, for health reasons, are unable to obtain health insurance 
coverage. These pools do not carry on an activity ordinarily carried on 
by insurance companies and are not designed to make a profit. Further, 
they are established by State statute and none of the net earnings 
benefits any private shareholder, member, or individual.
  The Federal Government should serve as an impetus for, not an 
impediment to, State health care reform. We should do all we can to 
increase the ability of States to help the uninsured. The Senate 
Finance Committee recognized the value of health risk pools and 
included a version of this bill in their health care reform legislation 
last year.
  In order to allow States real flexibility in designing effective 
health care plans, State health risk pools should be exempt from 
taxation. By passing this legislation, we will promote State-based 
health care reform by expressly granting Federal tax exemption to State 
health risk pools, notwithstanding the IRS's current position. While 
future national health care reform may eliminate the need for State 
health risk pools, until such reform is implemented, these entities 
will remain the only source of medical insurance for many of our 
citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  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. 539

       Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
     assembled, That (a) subsection (c) of section 501 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code 
     [[Page S3812]] of 1986 (relating to list of exempt 
     organizations) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(26) Any corporation, association, or similar legal 
     entity which is created by any State or political subdivision 
     thereof to establish a risk pool to provide health insurance 
     coverage to any person unable to obtain health insurance 
     coverage in the private insurance market because of health 
     conditions and no part of the net earnings of which inures to 
     the benefit of any private shareholder, member, or 
     individual.''
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to 
     taxable years beginning after December 31, 1989.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 540. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
conduct at least three demonstration projects involving promising 
technologies and practices to remedy contaminated sediments in the 
Great Lakes system and to authorize the Administrator to provide 
technical information and assistance on technologies and practices for 
remediation of contaminated sediments, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Levin, and Mr. 
        Feingold):
  S. 541. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
coordinate and promote Great Lakes activities, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                   great lakes resources legislation

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf 
of myself and my distinguished colleagues, Senator DeWine and Senator 
Levin to introduce the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated 
Sediments [ARCS] Reauthorization Act and on behalf of Senator DeWine, 
Senator Levin, and Senator Feingold to introduce the Great Lakes 
Federal Effectiveness Act.
  I am honored to be joined by a new Great Lakes Senator, Senator 
DeWine. I am pleased that the Senator from my home State, Ohio, has 
shown such significant leadership on Great Lakes issues so early on in 
the 104th Congress. Both Senator Levin and Senator Feingold's 
consistent leadership on issues of critical importance to the Great 
Lakes is exemplary. Furthermore, I am honored that another Ohio 
colleague, Congressman LaTourette, and Congressman Quinn are 
introducing a House companion bill for the Great Lakes Federal 
Effectiveness Act with Congressman Oberstar joining them on the ARCS 
Reauthorization Act.
  These two bills address the unique water resources in the Great Lakes 
region, the impact of contaminated sediments on our freshwater 
resources and the need for coordinated research efforts to efficiently 
apply science to our efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes. I 
am proud to join my colleagues from the Great Lakes region in the 
introduction of the ARCS Reauthorization Act and the Great Lakes 
Federal Effectiveness Act.
  Sedimentation has created a need to dredge Great Lakes harbors for 
decades. Industrialization of our region and the nation increased the 
amount of erosion and storm water runoff which in turn escalates the 
amount of sediment being deposited on our lake and river bottoms and 
coastal shores. Unfortunately, recent times have seen dredging become 
increasingly costly largely due to the contaminants which accompany the 
silt. Contaminated dredge spoils require special handling for proper 
disposal which adds to the cost of the dredging.
  Contrary to what one might think, the bottom of a water body is not a 
safe depository for toxics. Resuspension of these toxics may result 
from both human and natural activity in the water thus acting as a 
continual discharge of contamination into the water. The contaminants 
become available to enter the food chain or come in contact with 
recreational users. Contaminated sediments can result in shellfish 
contamination, fish advisories and threats to human health by those who 
consume tainted fish.
  The ARCS Program is a demonstration program for innovative technology 
to address the problem of contaminated sediments. The 5-year ARCS 
program was originally authorized in the 1987 Clean Water Act. The ARCS 
Program authorized the implementation of pilot-scale tests of promising 
sediment remediation technologies to address the water pollution 
problems in the Great Lakes. Reauthorization of the ARCS Program takes 
us to the next level: full-scale demonstrations of contaminated 
sediment remediation. The ARCS Program, coordinated by the 
Administrator of the EPA, acting through the Great Lakes National 
Program Office, would implement three sediment remediation 
demonstration projects and at least one full-scale demonstration of a 
remediation technology.
  The second bill, the Great Lakes Federal Effectiveness Act [GLFEA] is 
consistent with the current efforts to streamline Government and reduce 
redundant or outdated programs. The GLFEA will prevent unnecessary 
duplication of efforts among Federal agencies which undertake Great 
Lakes research. The act establishes a Great Lakes Council, composed of 
offices from the Environmental Protection Research Agency, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
and other Federal agencies conducting research in the Great Lakes 
basin. The Council will assess the current status of scientific 
research capabilities, identify research priorities for the region, 
make recommendations for integrated data collection and management of 
Great Lakes resources, and finally develop and disseminate its findings 
through a biennial report.
  The Great Lakes Federal Effectiveness Act does not require any new 
funding, rather it actually aims to help agencies better manage their 
research budgets and potentially cut costs through cooperative efforts 
to set research priorities and avoid unnecessary or duplicative 
projects. The Great Lakes Council will essentially serve as a 
clearinghouse for Great Lakes information and research findings and 
develop a uniform, multimedia, data collection protocol for use across 
the Great Lakes basin.
  The multimedia approach of this legislation allows our experts to 
share scientific knowledge and address air, water, soil, and wildlife 
factors in our efforts toward responsible stewardship of the Great 
Lakes ecosystem. This ecosystem perspective on the natural environment, 
if incorporated into our Federal environmental policy, promises to 
fundamentally improve the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental 
management.
  The Great Lakes Federal Effectiveness Act will provide Federal, 
State, academic and private sector officials with a vehicle through 
which information can be compiled and ultimately shared among the 
region's research community. The act will stretch our research dollars 
and help us to better tap scientific resources within the private 
sector, the academic community, and Federal agencies. I urge my 
colleagues of the Senate to endorse this legislation and move toward 
its timely enactment.


                          ____________________