[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4365-S4386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Reid, 
        Mr. Bryan, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Domenici, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Hatch):
  S. 587. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate 
the Old Spanish Trail and the northern branch of the Old Spanish Trail 
for potential inclusion into the National Trails System, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   old Spanish trail designation act

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I'm sending legislation to the 
desk to designate the Old Spanish Trail and the northern branch of the 
Old Spanish Trail for study for potential addition to the National 
Trails System.
  [[Page S4366]] The Old Spanish Trail has been called the ``longest, 
crookedest, most arduous pack mule route in the history of America.'' 
Linking two quaint pueblo outposts, Villa Real de Sante Fe de San 
Francisco--now known as Santa Fe; and El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora La 
Reina de Los Angeles--present day Los Angeles--this 1,200 mile route 
was a well worn path 150 years ago as annual caravans traded woolen 
blankets from New Mexico for California horses and mules.
  According to an early historian, the trail:

       * * * Headed Northwest from Santa Fe * * * eased over the 
     Continental Divide in northern New Mexico, cut through a spur 
     of the Rocky Mountains into Colorado, forded two swift rivers 
     (the Colorado and the Green above their junction), circled 
     northward to avoid the Grand Canyon's sculptured country, 
     dipped over the rim of the Great Basin into Utah, and crept 
     southwest through desert stretches of Nevada and California 
     to Los Angeles * * * Hoofs of pack animals leave but fleeting 
     imprints. As soon as the last mule train and left the Trail, 
     nature closed in to obliterate marks of human intrusion. 
     Matted brush sprang up to hide the mountain paths. Flash 
     floods gullied the gravel courses beside the streams. Chalky 
     gypsum surfaced the dry lake bottoms, so welcome to the hoofs 
     of foot-sore mules. Wind-born sand drifted over the shallow 
     trace through the wastelands. Even the dry bones that marked 
     the toll of an insatiable desert's greed crumbled to dust.

  The trail entered present day Colorado south of Pagosa Springs and 
proceeded northwesterly past today's settlements of Arboles, Ignacio, 
Durango, Mancos, Dolores, and Dove Creek. This is essentially the route 
used by Fathers Dominguez and Escalante in 1776. Unlike Dominguez and 
Escalante, the trail continued to the northwest toward the site of 
present day Monticello and crossed the Grand (Colorado) River at Moab 
and the Green River, 5 miles north of today's settlement of Green 
River. It continued westerly and passed the present settlements of 
Castle Dale, Salina, Sevier, Parowan, Newcastle, and St. George in 
Utah.
  Another historic trade route, known as the northern branch of the Old 
Spanish Trail, was used by trappers and traders to access northwestern 
Colorado and northeastern Utah. This route followed the east side of 
the Rio Grande river northward to Taos and into Colorado to the area 
near the present town of Alamosa. Another route of the northern branch 
followed the west side of the Rio Grande northward to Tres Piedras, New 
Mexico, and to Antonito, Colorado, and joined the other branch near 
Monte Vista. From the vicinity of Monte Vista, the trail continued 
northwesterly and
 passed the present day settlements of Saguache, Gunnison, Montrose, 
Delta, and Grand Junction. From Grand Junction, the trail followed the 
Grand (Colorado) River for some 50 miles through Fruita and Loma to 
near Dewey, UT, and then struck out northeast across the desert and 
joined the main Spanish Trail approximately 20 miles southeast of the 
Green River crossing.

  The northern branch was less used than the main Spanish Trail and 
very little is recorded concerning its use. Antoine Robidoux's trading 
fort, near Delta, was a principal outpost on the trail.
  The first person to record his journey from Santa Fe to Los Angeles 
was Antonio Armejo, who went on a trading expedition in 1829. His route 
had never been properly documented until 10 years ago when a historian 
from the University of Nevada began a study of the origins of the trail 
for her masters thesis. Much of what we know about the trail comes from 
recent scholarship and there is obviously much left to learn.
  A journey over the Spanish Trail and the northern branch in 1848 was 
later recorded by Lt. George B. Brewerton. The young lieutenant 
accompanied a party of some 30 men which included the noted scout, Kit 
Carson. Carson was carrying mail from Los Angeles to the East Coast. 
The party left Los Angeles on May 4 and reached Santa Fe via Taos on 
June 14, 41 days later. Carson proceeded east, reaching Washington, DC 
in mid-August, bringing news of the discovery of gold in California, 
and the great gold rush was on.
  Another description of the northern branch of the Old Spanish Trail 
in Colorado is told in the report of the Gunnison Expedition. In 1853, 
Capt. John Williams Gunnison, of the U.S. Corps of Topographic 
Engineers, was commissioned by the War Department to find a route for 
the railroad across the Colorado Rockies along the 38th Parallel. The 
party of 31 men and 32 U.S. Army Dragoons left Fort Leavenworth, KS, on 
June 23, 1853. Among the civilians were a topographer, an artist-
topographer, an astronomer, a botanist, a geologist-surgeon, and a 
wagon master and his crew to manage the 18-unit wagon train.
  After crossing the Sangre de Cristo Range, north of La Veta Pass, the 
Gunnison Expedition came upon the northern branch of the Spanish Trail 
in the San Luis Valley. Captain Gunnison followed this existing trade 
route of the northern branch of the Spanish Trail into eastern Utah 
where it joined the main Spanish Trail. The Gunnison Expedition came to 
a tragic end on October 26, 1853, when Gunnison and four of his men and 
three soldiers were killed in a skirmish with Indians near the present 
site of Delta, UT.
  The Old Spanish Trail played a part in all the cultures that occupied 
the West: the Utes, Navajos, Spaniards, Mexicans, and American 
settlers, including the mormons. The trail's period of use, from 1830 
to the 1880's spans the development of the West,
 from the Spaniard on foot to the great railways. Few routes, if any, 
pass through as much relatively pristine country as the Old Spanish 
Trail, particularly in northwest New Mexico, western Colorado, central 
Utah, southern Nevada and southern California. A number of independent 
scholars and various researchers have begun separate studies of 
different segments of the trail, and an Old Spanish Trail Assoc. was 
recently founded in Colorado to study and preserve this trail, and 
raise the public awareness of our country's diverse cultural heritage 
in this region. Some of the members of the association have already 
located wagon ruts and other vestiges of the trail's heyday, and a 
proper study is certain to produce more such exciting echoes of our 
shared heritage.

  These is a groundswell of support for a study of the Old Spanish 
Trail. I've received resolutions to designate the trail as historic 
from over 20 municipalities in Colorado, as well as the Colorado 
General Assembly. There are also a number of volunteer groups along the 
trail who are anxious to offer their services, expertise and assistance 
to this very exciting and long overdue endeavor.
  The time has come to acknowledge the national historical importance 
of the Old Spanish Trail. Mr. President, this bill to designate the Old 
Spanish Trail for study for potential addition to the National Trails 
System promotes the recognition, protection and interpretation of our 
history in the West. By introducing this legislation today, we pay 
tribute to the cultures of the West, and to an important period in 
American history.
  I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of 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. 587

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

       Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1244(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(36) The Old Spanish Trail, beginning in Santa Fe, New 
     Mexico, proceeding through Colorado and Utah, and ending in 
     Los Angeles, California, and the Northern Branch of the Old 
     Spanish Trail, beginning near Espanola, New Mexico, 
     proceeding through Colorado, and ending near Crescent 
     Junction, Utah.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. 
        Pressler):
  S. 588. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 with respect to rules governing litigation contesting 
termination or reduction with respect to rules governing litigation 
contesting termination or reduction of retiree health benefits; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                 retiree health benefits protection act

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week on the floor of the Senate I 
spoke about the struggles of the 1,200 retirees 
[[Page S4367]]  of the John Morrell meatpacking plant in Sioux Falls, 
who, along with over 2,000 other company retirees around the country, 
found out in January that their health benefits--benefits they believed 
they would have for life--were being abruptly terminated. These 
retirees, many of whom had accepted lower pensions in return for the 
promise of lifetime health benefits, were suddenly faced with the 
prospect of paying up to $500 a month per couple for health insurance 
or losing the benefits that they had assumed would be available during 
their retirement years.
  Today I am introducing legislation to help these retirees and their 
families; legislation that would restore their health benefits as they 
seek redress in court and establish protections against such arbitrary 
behavior by employers in the future.
  My bill would protect retirees' health benefits in two ways:
  First, it would require employers to continue to provide retiree 
health benefits while a cancellation of benefits is being challenged in 
court. Anyone who has dealt with our legal system and its long waiting 
periods and delays knows the importance of this measure.
  Why should anyone who has worked for 20 or 30 years be forced to 
spend his or her life savings on health insurance--or go without health 
insurance entirely--while their pleas for simple justice wind through 
the courts?
  Second, my bill would eliminate the surprise nature of employee 
health benefit cancellations by requiring employers to prove they had 
warned workers in advance, before they retire, that their future 
benefits could be canceled at some time in the future. That seems only 
fair.
  This legislation recognizes that health benefits are not charity. 
Many workers give up larger pensions and other benefits in exchange for 
them. It never occurs to these workers that their benefits could be 
taken away, with no increase in their pensions or other benefits to 
compensate for the loss.
  Many workers stay with the same company for dozens of years, perhaps 
all of their adult lives. They believe that a company they help build 
will reward their loyalty, honesty, and hard work.
  Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as the 3,300 retirees of 
John Morrell & Co. found out only a week before their benefits were 
terminated.
  In this particular case, Morrell retirees received a simple, yet 
unexpected, letter stating their health insurance plan was being 
terminated, effective midnight, January 31, 1995--only a week later. 
The benefits being terminated, the letter said, included all hospital, 
major medical, and prescription drug coverage, Medicare supplemental 
insurance, vision care, and life insurance coverage.
  For those retirees under 65, this action poses a particular problem. 
While Morrell gave them the option of paying for their own coverage for 
up to 1 year, few can afford the $500 monthly premium for a couple. And 
many cannot purchase coverage at any price, because of preexisting 
conditions like diabetes or heart disease.
 Medicare beneficiaries would have to buy expensive supplemental 
insurance on their own.

  Morrell's decision was all the more painful to the retirees because 
it was so unexpected. These retirees believed they worked for a fair 
company; that a fair day's work resulted in a fair day's pay. Part of a 
fair day's pay is the retirement income and benefits employees earn 
through their service.
  These retirees found out the hard way that the company they had 
helped to build had turned its back on them.
  They also found out that the court system was not sympathetic to 
their cause. An Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling allowed the 
company to take this action. The union representing the retirees plans 
to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
  Sadly, some of the retirees won't live long enough to benefit from a 
possible reversal.
  These proud and hard-working people now worry that high medical costs 
will impoverish them or force them to rely on their children or the 
government for financial help. Each day they live in fear of illness 
and injury because they have no health insurance.
  Because this legislation is not just for the Morrell retirees, 
because what happened to these workers is not an isolated situation--it 
could happen to any of the 14 million retired workers who believe they 
and their families have life-long health insurance coverage through 
their employers.
  Two-thirds of American companies surveyed recently had plans to 
reduce retiree health benefits or to shift more costs to retirees.
  The Morrell dispute is one of 35 cases nationwide in which retirees 
are suing their former companies for slashing those benefits, or 
cutting them altogether.
  As I have said repeatedly, the long-run solution is comprehensive 
health reform that guarantees every American--and employer--access to 
affordable health care.
  I have fought over the years for this kind of comprehensive reform 
and was deeply disappointed when the 103d Congress was unable to pass 
legislation addressing some of our health care system's most serious 
problems. If we had passed health reform, the Morrell retirees would 
not be facing this loss of their health benefits today.
  Clearly, the problems we talked about in last year's health reform 
debate did not solve themselves when the session ended.
  And some of these problems, like the one the Morrell retirees face, 
cannot wait for the long-run. These retirees cannot wait for the 
resolution of the health reform debate.
  The new majority in Congress seems to believe the solution to all our 
problems--economic, social, moral, you name it--is passing their so-
called Contract With America.
  I believe the solution is restoring the old contract between workers 
and employers. The contract that said if you work hard, you can get 
ahead. The contract that said if you give a company 20 or 30 years of 
loyal service, you can retire with dignity. The contract that said if 
you give someone your word, you will keep it.
  Restoring that contract must be our ultimate aim.
  In the meantime, I am determined to work with my colleagues in 
Congress to make sure retirees can keep their health insurance while 
they wait for their day in court, and to be sure that no other retirees 
get an unexpected letter in the mail, similar to the one the Morrell 
retirees received.
  That is the goal of the legislation that I am introducing today.
  I hope we can pass this measure expeditiously, to end the injustice 
of the Morrell situation, and so that others never have to face the 
problem Morrell retirees are grappling with today.
  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. 588

       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 ``Retiree Health Benefits 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. RULES GOVERNING LITIGATION INVOLVING RETIREE HEALTH 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Part 5 of subtitle B of title I of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1131 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 516. RULES GOVERNING LITIGATION INVOLVING RETIREE 
                   HEALTH BENEFITS.

       ``(a) Maintenance of Benefits.--
       ``(1) In general.--If--
       ``(A) retiree health benefits or plan or plan sponsor 
     payments in connection with such benefits are to be or have 
     been terminated or reduced under an employee welfare benefit 
     plan; and
       ``(B) an action is brought by any participant or 
     beneficiary to enjoin or otherwise modify such termination or 
     reduction,

     the court without requirement of any additional showing shall 
     promptly order the plan and plan sponsor to maintain the 
     retiree health benefits and payments at the level in effect 
     immediately before the termination or reduction while the 
     action is pending in any court. No security or other 
     undertaking shall be required of any participant or 
     beneficiary as a condition for issuance of such relief. An 
     order requiring such maintenance of benefits may be refused 
     or dissolved only upon determination by the court, on the 
     basis of clear and convincing evidence, that the action is 
     clearly without merit.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     action if--
       ``(A) the termination or reduction of retiree health 
     benefits is substantially similar to a termination or 
     reduction in health benefits (if any) provided to current 
     employees 
     [[Page S4368]]  which occurs either before, or at or about 
     the same time as, the termination or reduction of retiree 
     health benefits, or
       ``(B) the changes in benefits are in connection with the 
     addition, expansion, or clarification of the delivery system, 
     including utilization review requirements and restrictions, 
     requirements that goods or services be obtained through 
     managed care entities or specified providers or categories of 
     providers, or other special major case management 
     restrictions.
       ``(3) Modifications.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preclude a court from modifying the obligation of a plan or 
     plan sponsor to the extent retiree benefits are otherwise 
     being paid by the plan sponsor.
       ``(b) Burden of Proof.--In addition to the relief 
     authorized in subsection (a) or otherwise available, if, in
      any action to which subsection (a)(1) applies, the terms of 
     the employee welfare benefit plan summary plan description 
     or, in the absence of such description, other materials 
     distributed to employees at the time of a participant's 
     retirement or disability, are silent or are ambiguous, 
     either on their face or after consideration of extrinsic 
     evidence, as to whether retiree health benefits and 
     payments may be terminated or reduced for a participant 
     and his or her beneficiaries after the participant's 
     retirement or disability, then the benefits and payments 
     shall not be terminated or reduced for the participant and 
     his or her beneficiaries unless the plan or plan sponsor 
     establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
     summary plan description or other materials about retiree 
     benefits--
       ``(1) were distributed to the participant at least 90 days 
     in advance of retirement or disability;
       ``(2) did not promise retiree health benefits for the 
     lifetime of the participant and his or her spouse; and
       ``(3) clearly and specifically disclosed that the plan 
     allowed such termination or reduction as to the participant 
     after the time of his or her retirement or disability.

     The disclosure described in paragraph (3) must have been made 
     prominently and in language which can be understood by the 
     average plan participant.
       ``(c) Representation.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, an employee representative of any retired employee or 
     the employee's spouse or dependents may--
       ``(1) bring an action described in this section on behalf 
     of such employee, spouse, or dependents; or
       ``(2) appear in such an action on behalf of such employee, 
     spouse or dependents.
       ``(d) Retiree Health Benefits.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the term `retiree health benefits' means health 
     benefits (including coverage) which are provided to--
       ``(1) retired or disabled employees who, immediately before 
     the termination or reduction, have a reasonable expectation 
     to receive such benefits upon retirement or becoming 
     disabled; and
       ``(2) their spouses or dependents.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1 of such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 515 the following new item:

``Sec. 516. Rules governing litigation involving retiree health 
              benefits.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to actions relating to terminations or reductions 
     of retiree health benefits which are pending or brought, on 
     or after March 23, 1995.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COATS (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Specter, Mr. Lugar, and 
        Mrs. Kassebaum):
  S. 589. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to permit 
Governors to limit the disposal of out-of-State solid waste in their 
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


           INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Interstate 
Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995. For the past 5 
years, I have fought to give all States and local communities the right 
to say ``No'' to out-of-State trash. I am convinced that interstate 
waste legislation is necessary so that States and communities can 
intelligently plan their waste disposal needs.
  As interstate waste legislation has traveled through the Senate and 
the House, we have learned important principles in the effort to 
protect importing States while allowing exporters sufficient time to 
adjust to new rules. My bill incorporates these important principles.
  First, my bill allows the importing States to ratchet down the amount 
of trash they receive. Beginning in 1997, landfills and incinerators 
that receive more than 50,000 tons of trash may reduce the amount of 
out-of-State trash they import.
  Second, my bill requires the exporting States to reduce the
   amount of trash that they export by certain target dates. This 
provision allows for a gradual adjustment on the part of the large 
exporting States.

  Third, my bill allows all States to choose between 1993 and 1994 
freeze levels. This provision ensures flexibility without sacrificing 
protection from flow levels that fluctuate.
  Finally, my bill will provide additional backup authority to limit 
waste flows by allowing the State planning and permitting process to 
take into account local need when siting new capacity. Under this 
provision, a State could deny a permit for construction or operation of 
a new landfill based on the fact that there is no local or regional 
need.
  The flow of waste across State lines is not a new problem. States 
like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Indiana have suffered 
under the tremendous volumes of out-of-State waste. States have tried 
to stop the growing shipments of interstate waste by enacting 
legislation that restricts the flow. Yet, courts have held many of 
these laws in violation of the commerce clause and therefore 
unconstitutional. In order to address the constitutional question, 
Congress must legislate the issue.
  During the past 5 years, Congress has come close to giving the States 
the power to enact interstate waste legislation. Many of my colleagues 
have worked very hard to see that this is finally accomplished. We have 
had to give and take on both sides. I am hopeful that this is the year 
that Congress can complete the task.
  This legislation issues a simple plea for each community, each State, 
to be responsible for the environment, and accountable for the trash 
they generate.
  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. 589

       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 ``Interstate Transportation of 
     Municipal Waste Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE.

       Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


             ``interstate transportation of municipal waste

       ``Sec. 4011. (a) Authority To Restrict Out-of-State 
     Municipal Waste.--(1)(A) Except as provided in subsection 
     (b), if requested in writing by an affected local government, 
     a Governor may prohibit the disposal of out-of-State 
     municipal waste in any landfill or incinerator that is 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the Governor or the affected 
     local government.
       ``(B) Prior to submitting a request under this section, the 
     affected local government shall--
       ``(i) provide notice and opportunity for public comment 
     concerning any proposed request; and
       ``(ii) following notice and comment, take formal action on 
     any proposed request at a public meeting.
       ``(2) Beginning with calendar year 1995, a Governor of a 
     State may, with respect to landfills covered by the 
     exceptions provided in subsection (b)--
       ``(A) notwithstanding the absence of a request in writing 
     by the affected local government--
       ``(i) limit the quantity of out-of-State municipal waste 
     received for disposal at each landfill in the State to an 
     annual quantity equal to the quantity of out-of-State 
     municipal waste received for disposal at the landfill during 
     the calendar year 1993 or 1994, whichever is less; and
       ``(ii) limit the disposal of out-of-State municipal waste 
     at landfills that received, during calendar year 1993, 
     documented shipments of more than 50,000 tons of out-of-State 
     municipal waste representing more than 30 percent of all 
     municipal waste received at the landfill during the calendar 
     year, by prohibiting at each such landfill the disposal, in 
     any year, of a quantity of out-of-State municipal waste that 
     is greater than 30 percent of all municipal waste received at 
     the landfill during calendar year 1993; and
       ``(B) if requested in writing by the affected local 
     government, prohibit the disposal of out-of-State municipal 
     waste in landfill cells that do not meet the design and 
     location standards and leachate collection and ground water 
     monitoring requirements of State law and regulations in 
     effect on January 1, 1993, for new landfills.
       ``(3)(A) In addition to the authorities provided in 
     paragraph (1)(A), beginning with calendar year 1997, a 
     Governor of any State, if requested in writing by the 
     affected local government, may further limit the disposal of 
     out-of-State municipal waste as provided 
     [[Page S4369]] in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) by reducing the 30 
     percent annual quantity limitation to 20 percent in each of 
     calendar years 1998 and 1999, and to 10 percent in each 
     succeeding calendar year.
       ``(B)(i) A State may ban imports from large exporting 
     States if the volumes of municipal solid waste exported by 
     those States did not meet reduction targets.
       ``(ii) A ban under clause (i) may prohibit imports from 
     States that export more than--
       ``(I) 3,500,000 tons in calendar year 1996;
       ``(II) 3,000,000 tons in calendar year 1997;
       ``(III) 3,000,000 tons in calendar year 1998;
       ``(IV) 2,500,000 tons in calendar year 1999;
       ``(V) 2,500,000 tons in calendar year 2000;
       ``(VI) 1,500,000 tons in calendar year 2001; or
       ``(VII) 1,500,000 tons in calendar year 2002;
       ``(VIII) 1,000,000 tons in any calendar year after 2002,

     excluding any volume legitimately covered by a host community 
     agreement.
       ``(4)(A) Any limitation imposed by the Governor under 
     paragraph (2)(A)--
       ``(i) shall be applicable throughout the State;
       ``(ii) shall not discriminate against any particular 
     landfill within the State; and
       ``(iii) shall not discriminate against any shipments of 
     out-of-State municipal waste on the basis of State of origin.
       ``(B) In responding to requests by affected local 
     governments under paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(B), the Governor 
     shall respond in a manner that does not discriminate against 
     any particular landfill within the State and does not 
     discriminate against any shipments of out-of-State municipal 
     waste on the basis of State of origin.
       ``(5)(A) Any Governor who intends to exercise the authority 
     provided in this paragraph shall, within 120 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, submit to the 
     Administrator information documenting the quantity of out-of-
     State municipal waste received for disposal in the State of 
     the Governor during calendar years 1993 and 1994.
       ``(B) On receipt of the information submitted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall notify the Governor 
     of each State and the public and shall provide a comment 
     period of not less than 30 days.
       ``(C) Not later than 60 days after receipt of information 
     from a Governor under subparagraph (A), the Administrator 
     shall determine the quantity of out-of-State municipal waste 
     that was received at each landfill covered by the exceptions 
     provided in subsection (b) for disposal in the State of the 
     Governor during calendar years 1993 and 1994, and provide 
     notice of the determination to the Governor of each State. A 
     determination by the Administrator under this subparagraph 
     shall be final and not subject to judicial review.
       ``(D) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section, the Administrator shall publish a list of 
     the quantity of out-of-State municipal waste that was 
     received during calendar years 1993 and 1994 at each landfill 
     covered by the exceptions provided in subsection (b) for 
     disposal in each State in which the Governor intends to 
     exercise the authority provided in this paragraph, as 
     determined in accordance with subparagraph (C).
       ``(b) Exceptions To Authority To Prohibit Out-of-State 
     Municipal Waste.--The authority to prohibit the disposal of 
     out-of-State municipal waste provided under subsection (a)(1) 
     shall not apply to--
       ``(1) landfills in operation on the date of enactment of 
     this section that--
       ``(A) received during calendar year 1993 documented 
     shipments of out-of-State municipal waste; and
       ``(B) are in compliance with all applicable State laws 
     (including any State rule or regulation) relating to design 
     and location standards, leachate collection, ground water 
     monitoring, and financial assurance for closure and post-
     closure and corrective action;
       ``(2) proposed landfills that, prior to January 1, 1993, 
     received--
       ``(A) an explicit authorization as part of a host community 
     agreement from the affected local government to receive 
     municipal waste generated out-of-State; and
       ``(B) a notice of decision from the State to grant a 
     construction permit; or
       ``(3) incinerators in operation on the date of enactment of 
     this section that--
       ``(A) received, during calendar year 1993, documented 
     shipments of out-of-State municipal waste;
       ``(B) are in compliance with the applicable requirements of 
     section 129 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7429); and
       ``(C) are in compliance with all applicable State laws 
     (including any State rule or regulation) relating to facility 
     design and operations.
       ``(c) Denial of Permits on Ground of Lack of Need.--
       ``(1) Denial.--A State may deny a permit for the 
     construction or operation of a new landfill or incinerator or 
     a major modification of an existing landfill or incinerator 
     if--
       ``(A) the State has approved a State or local comprehensive 
     solid waste management plan developed under Federal or State 
     law; and
       ``(B) the denial is based on the State's determination, 
     pursuant to a State law authorizing such denial, that there 
     is not a local or regional need of the landfill or 
     incinerator in the State.
       ``(2) Undue burden.--A denial of a permit under paragraph 
     (1) shall not be considered to impose an undue burden on 
     interstate commerce or to otherwise impair, restrain, or 
     discriminate against interstate commerce.
       ``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) The term `affected local government' means--
       ``(A) the public body authorized by State law to plan for 
     the management of municipal solid waste, a majority of the 
     members of which are elected officials, for the area in which 
     the landfill or incinerator is located or proposed to be 
     located; or
       ``(B) if there is not such body created by State law, the 
     elected officials of the city, town, township, borrough, 
     county, or parish selected by the Governor and exercising 
     primary responsibility over municipal solid waste management 
     or the use of land in the jurisdiction in which the facility 
     is located or proposed to be located.
       ``(2) The term `affected local solid waste planning unit' 
     means a political subdivision of a State with authority 
     relating to solid waste management planning in accordance 
     with State law.
       ``(3) With respect to a State, the term `out-of-State 
     municipal waste' means municipal waste generated outside the 
     State. To the extent that it is consistent with the United 
     States-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement 
     on Tariffs and Trade, the term shall include municipal waste 
     generated outside the United States.
       ``(4) The term `host community agreement' means a written, 
     legally binding document or documents executed by duly 
     authorized officials of the affected local government that 
     specifically authorizes a landfill or incinerator to receive 
     municipal solid waste generated out-of-State.
       ``(5) The term `municipal waste' means refuse (and refuse-
     derived fuel) generated by the general public or from a 
     residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial source 
     (or any combination thereof), consisting of paper, wood, yard 
     wastes, plastics, leather, rubber, or other combustible or 
     noncombustible materials such as metal or glass (or any 
     combination thereof). The term `municipal waste' does not 
     include--
       ``(A) any solid waste identified or listed as a hazardous 
     waste under section 3001;
       ``(B) any solid waste, including contaminated soil and 
     debris, resulting from a response action taken under section 
     104 or 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9604, 9606) or a 
     corrective action taken under this Act;
       ``(C) any metal, pipe, glass, plastic, paper, textile, or 
     other material that has been separated or diverted from 
     municipal waste and has been transported into the State for 
     the purpose of recycling or reclamation;
       ``(D) any solid waste that is--
       ``(i) generated by an industrial facility; and
       ``(ii) transported for the purpose of treatment, storage, 
     or disposal to a facility that is owned or operated by the 
     generator of the waste, or is located on property owned by 
     the generator or a company with which the generator is 
     affiliated;
       ``(E) any solid waste generated incident to the provision 
     of service in interstate, intrastate, foreign, or overseas 
     air transportation;
       ``(F) any industrial waste that is not identical to 
     municipal waste with respect to the physical and chemical 
     state of the industrial waste, and composition, including 
     construction and demolition debris;
       ``(G) any medical waste that is segregated from or not 
     mixed with municipal waste; or
       ``(H) any material or product returned from a dispenser or 
     distributor to the manufacturer for credit, evaluation, or 
     possible reuse.''.

     SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS AMENDMENT.

       The table of contents of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is 
     amended by adding at the end of the items relating to 
     subtitle D the following new item:

``Sec. 4011. Interstate transportation of municipal waste.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 590. A bill for the relief of Matt Clawson; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                    private relief for matt clawson

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation on 
behalf of Matt Clawson of Pocatello, ID. Mr. Clawson has been required 
to pay dearly for mistakes made by his Government. His plaintive appeal 
for help is a proper place for Congress to begin redressing and 
reforming profligate regulatory excesses, abuses, and injustices by 
this Government against its citizens.
  Mr. Clawson obtained from the U.S. Forest Service all of the required 
approvals for his mining claim and plan of operations on the Middle 
Fork of the Salmon River near the Frank Church River of No Return 
Wilderness in Idaho. He spend what was for him an enormous sum of money 
to develop and begin working the claim according to Forest Service 
requirements. Shortly thereafter, however, and before he could recover 
any of his investment, he was required to cease operations. The reason 
was a lawsuit and subsequent court rulings that found the Forest 
Service had erred in granting the approvals.
  This bill simply reimburses Mr. Clawson's expenses with interest 
[[Page S4370]]  added. It does not attempt to provide compensation for 
any purported value of the claim. He has exhausted all of his legal 
remedies, necessitating this private relief bill. I believe the 
compensation is more than warranted. Moreover, U.S. Claims Court Judge 
Wiese commented on the record that Mr. Clawson's case had ``been a very 
troubling case'' for him and he believed ``this man should be given 
some relief somewhere.'' That somewhere can only be, and must be, here.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
  S. 592. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 and the National Labor Relations Act to modify certain provisions, 
to transfer certain occupational safety and health functions to the 
Secretary of Labor, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources.


               occupational safety and health reform act

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, one issue about which all of us have 
heard from our constituents, over and over again, is the need for 
fundamental reform of the tortured and increasingly tangled web of 
Federal overregulation. Perhaps more than in any other area of Federal 
Government regulation, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration [OSHA] has come to symbolize what is wrong. Today I 
offer a bill to reform the laws that were originally intended to ensure 
workplace safety.
  I have spoken on the floor of the Senate on numerous occasions in 
recent months on examples of Federal Government overregulation, of the 
unintended consequences of regulatory excess that puts Americans out of 
work, usurps our constitutional rights, and saps our productivity and 
economic competitiveness. OSHA problems are always at the top of my 
constituents' concerns.
  For example, in my home State of Texas, an OSHA compliance officer 
from the Corpus Christi area office, stated under oath that OSHA area 
directors are under enormous pressure to produce high numbers of 
citations and penalties--that OSHA employees' job performance 
evaluations apparently depend on meeting de facto quotas. This same 
OSHA compliance officer also testified that his supervisor directed him 
to cite companies, even when both the supervisor and the inspector knew 
full well a company did not violate any regulation and did not warrant 
a citation. In the words of this conscientious officer, his supervisors 
told him to hit the employer.
  In otherwords, Mr. President, one regulator can carry on a vendetta 
against an innocent business, thus jeopardizing that business and 
everyone who depends on that business to support themselves and their 
families. This sort of thing is not supposed to happen in America, and 
it is Congress' job to make sure it does not.
  Congress originally established OSHA to protect Americans from the 
threat of injury in the workplace. OSHA was charged with investigating 
and, if necessary, penalizing businesses that willfully endangered its 
workers. Businesses and workers have a mutual interest in promoting 
workplace safety. No responsible businessman or businesswoman would 
intentionally put another human being at risk. Furthermore, accidents 
reduce productivity and cost money; they deprive businesses of their 
most important, hardworking, productive employees. No business prospers 
when its employees are ill or injured.
  Congress founded OSHA with the hope and expectation that the Federal 
Government could encourage businesses and employees to work
 together to resolve problems and to foster safer working environments. 
Mr. President, this hope has been dashed--dashed by the congress' 
failure to update Federal safety laws to keep pace with changes in the 
workplace, dashed by the emergence of a culture of regulatory excess 
that eats away at the vitality of our economy.

  Therefore, I introduce a bill today to restore what Congress intended 
25 years ago, when OSHA was created, and to inject into our regulatory 
agencies some common sense and sound objective criteria. My bill aims 
to foment real cooperation between employer, employee and the Federal 
Government, and to ensure that OSHA's resources are focused on the 
safety issues the American people want to have protected--not on 
vendettas against certain businesses, not on quotas for Federal 
inspectors to meet, not on tearing down labor-management cooperation we 
must have if we are to continue as the world's most productive and 
dynamic economy.
  A safe worksite is everybody's responsibility, but today that is not 
the case. Laws are enforced so that the responsibility rests 
exclusively on the employer. Employers must be held accountable, but 
the frivolousness manner in which safety laws are applied in many cases 
does nothing to improve safety and does incalculable harm to American's 
confidence in their Government.
  Not long ago, the Indiana OSHA found the owner of an Indiana Handy 
Mart liable for not providing a safe workplace after an armed bandit 
robbed and killed an employee of the store. In other words, it is the 
store owner's fault that there are armed criminals on our streets. By 
this same logic, it is every robbery victim's fault, for not having 
taken sufficient precautions.
  Mr. President, we all know how serious the problem of crime and 
violence are. But does anyone think the fault for this crisis and the 
responsibility for overcoming it lies with the victims?
  This case highlights the way that regulatory excess has been allowed 
to drift into absurdity. Indeed, the absurd is becoming the norm, as 
millions of Americans who operate businesses and work for a living 
know. It is Congress that has refused to acknowledge how long overdue 
are the fundamental reforms needed to restore common sense.
  My bill will also stop OSHA from citing an employer, even when he or 
she has provided the proper training and equipment to prevent an 
accident, and taken every conceivable step to assure safety.
  In east Texas, after two workers--a supervisor and his assistant--
died of asphyxiation after entering a confined space against strict 
company policy, originally OSHA concluded that there was no violation, 
and OSHA closed the case. However, OSHA reopened the case and issued 
several citations after a civil lawsuit was filed. The employer's 
insurance company panicked and settled the suit for $1.5 million. 
Subsequently, OSHA dropped the citations. But the harm was done.
  This kind of case sets a very dangerous precedent. The mere fact that 
OSHA has cited a company is often enough to convince a jury of employer 
wrongdoing, and in many jurisdictions a citation is admissible as per 
se negligence. An employer has no choice but to challenge very OSHA 
citation for fear of civil liability if he or she complies. We must 
change that, and my bill does--by making OSHA citations and abatement 
efforts inadmissible as evidence in any private litigation or 
enhancement of recovery under worker's compensation law.
  My bill also changes current OSHA practice of conducting wall-to-wall 
inspections of a business whenever an employee files a complaint about 
a specific workplace issue. Congress didn't intend for Federal 
regulators to tear a business apart every time a complaint is filed. 
OSHA's current policies threaten every business with a disgruntled 
employee.
  To encourage more labor-management cooperation, my legislation also 
asks that an employee first notify his or her employer of a potential 
workplace hazard. Any responsible business operator will take steps to 
rectify problems before an accident occurs. If not, OSHA can step in 
and take action. Common sense, Mr. President, just plain common sense.
  Another provision of my legislation borrows from the TEAM Act, 
introduced by my friend from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, who chairs the 
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. Federal regulators
 currently prohibit employers and employees from forming employer-
employee groups to discuss issues like workplace safety. The 
legislation I introduce today, just like the TEAM Act which Senator 
Kassebaum has authored--which I cosponsored--would permit such 
legitimate workplace cooperation.

  Businesses, especially small businesses, are finding it increasingly 
difficult to endure the current regulatory environment. The same small 
business 
[[Page S4371]]  sector that has always been the engine of economic 
growth, the creator of most new jobs in our country, is increasingly 
stifled and hamstrung by a rising tide of Federal overregulation.
  But as I speak, OSHA is readying a gigantic expansion of its 
regulatory authority. Its so-called ergonomics rules will give OSHA 
authority to control virtually every aspect of a business' operations. 
Under the proposed new rules, OSHA would be able to set limits on 
employee productivity, to limit work shifts and overtime, to re-design 
machinery, even entire production lines, and to prohibit innovation.
  At best, these proposed rules are based on the shakiest of scientific 
justification. But there is no doubt of the harm they will do. Initial 
estimates put the costs of compliance at $21 billion a year. 
Eventually, however, these new rules would guarantee our businesses and 
our workers would lose ground steadily in the vital areas of 
productivity and innovation, thus doing incalculable harm to our 
economy.
  According to the Clinton administration's 1995 regulatory plan, OSHA 
is also working on eight other significant new regulations. I 
bureaucratic parlance, a significant action is one that will cost at 
least $100 million annually. It's no wonder the administration is 
requesting a more-than-10 percent increase in OSHA's budget. Enforcing 
all of these new regulations will require thousands of new inspectors, 
supervisors, and bureaucrats.
  The administration also is fighting to maintain funding for the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which I propose 
to end. NIOSH costs nearly $133 million this year, with no appreciable 
benefits for workplace safety or the national welfare.
  Twenty-five years ago, this body helped to create a new agency, OSHA, 
to pursue a worthwhile goal--protecting American workers from avoidable 
injury in the work place. The idea was based upon a partnership between 
employers, employees and the Government. That experiment has not 
worked. The very legislation that was meant to free people from the 
everyday threat of accidental injury is now threatening to remove our 
freedoms.
  Mr. President, we have the responsibility of averting threats to our 
freedoms. We can do so merely by doing what Congress intended to do in 
the first place. Through the application of common sense tests for 
Federal involvement and return to cooperation, we can make worksites 
both safer and better.
  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. 592

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Occupational Safety and Health Reform Act of 1995''.
       (b) Reference.--Whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal 
     is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et 
     seq.).

     SEC. 2. USE OF OSHA IN PRIVATE LITIGATION.

       Section 4(b)(4) (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(4)) is amended by adding 
     before the period the following: ``, except that an 
     allegation of a violation, a finding of a violation, or an 
     abatement of an alleged violation, under this Act or the 
     standards promulgated under this Act shall not be admissible 
     as evidence in any civil action or used to increase the 
     amount of payments received under any workmen's compensation 
     law for any work-related injury''.

     SEC. 3. DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.

       Section 5 (29 U.S.C. 654) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(c) On multi-employer work sites, an employer may not be 
     cited for a violation of this section if the employer--
       ``(1) has not created the condition that caused the 
     violation; or
       ``(2) has no employees exposed to the violation and has not 
     assumed responsibility for ensuring compliance by other 
     employers on the work site.''.

     SEC. 4. STANDARD SETTING.

       (a) Standards.--Section 6(b)(5) (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) The development of standards under this section shall 
     be based on the latest scientific data in the field and on 
     research demonstrations, experiments, and other information 
     that may be appropriate. In establishing the standards, the 
     Secretary shall consider, and make findings, based on the 
     following factors:
       ``(A) The standard shall be needed to address a significant 
     risk of material impairment to workers and shall 
     substantially reduce that risk.
       ``(B) The standard shall be technologically and 
     economically feasible.
       ``(C) There shall be a reasonable relationship between the 
     costs and benefits of the standard.
       ``(D) The standard shall provide protection to workers in 
     the most cost-effective manner and minimize employment loss 
     due to the standard in the affected industries and sectors of 
     industries.
       ``(E) Whenever practicable, the standard shall be expressed 
     in terms of objective criteria and of the performance 
     desired.''.
       (b) Variances.--Section 6(d) (29 U.S.C. 655(d)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sentences: ``No 
     citation shall be issued for a violation of an occupational 
     safety and health standard that is the subject of a good 
     faith application for a variance during the period the 
     application is pending before the Secretary.''.
       (c) Standard Priorities.--The second sentence of section 
     6(g) (29 U.S.C. 655(g)) is amended to read as follows: ``In 
     determining the priority for establishing standards dealing 
     with toxic materials or the physical agents of toxic 
     materials, the Secretary shall consider the number of workers 
     exposed to the substance, the nature and severity of 
     potential impairment, and the likelihood of such impairment 
     based on information obtained by the Secretary from the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, and other appropriate sources.''.
       (d) Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.--Section 6 (29 U.S.C. 
     655) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(h) In promulgating an occupational safety and health 
     standard under subsection (b), the Secretary shall perform a 
     regulatory flexibility analysis described in sections 603 and 
     604 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(i) In promulgating any occupational safety and health 
     standard under subsection (b), the Secretary shall minimize 
     the time, effort, and costs involved in the retention, 
     reporting, notifying, or disclosure of information to the 
     Secretary, to third parties, or to the public to the extent 
     consistent with the purpose of the standard. Compliance with 
     the requirement of this subsection may be included in a 
     review under subsection (f).''.

     SEC. 5. INSPECTIONS.

       (a) Authority of Secretary.--Section 8(a)(2) (29 U.S.C. 
     657(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) to inspect and investigate during regular working 
     hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable 
     limits and in a reasonable manner, any such place of 
     employment and all pertinent conditions, structures, 
     machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, and materials in 
     such place of employment.

     In conducting inspections and investigations under paragraph 
     (2), the Secretary may question any such employer, owner, 
     operator, agent or employee. Interviews of employees may be 
     in private if the employee so requests.''.
       (b) Recordkeeping.--
       (1) General maintenance.--The first sentence of section 
     8(c)(1) (29 U.S.C. 657(c)(i)) is amended to read as follows: 
     ``Each employer shall make, keep and preserve, and make 
     available upon reasonable request and within reasonable 
     limits to the Secretary or the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, such records regarding the activities of the 
     employer relating to this Act as the Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     may prescribe by regulation as necessary or appropriate for 
     the enforcement of this Act or for developing information 
     regarding the causes and prevention of occupational accidents 
     and illnesses.''.
       (2) Records or reports on injuries.--Section 8(c) (29 
     U.S.C. 657(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(4) In prescribing regulations under this subsection, the 
     Secretary may not require employers to maintain records of, 
     or to make reports on, injuries that do not involve lost work 
     time or that involve employees of other employers.
       ``(5) In prescribing regulations requiring employers to 
     report work-related deaths and multiple hospitalizations, the 
     Secretary shall include provisions that provide an employer 
     at least 24 hours in which to make such report.''.
       (c) Inspections Based on Employee Complaints.--Section 8(f) 
     (29 U.S.C. 657(f)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f)(1)(A) An employee or representative of an employee 
     who believes that a violation of a safety or health standard 
     exists that threatens physical harm, or that an imminent 
     danger exists, may request an inspection by giving notice to 
     the Secretary or an authorized representative of the 
     Secretary of such violation or danger.
       ``(B) Notice under subparagraph (A) shall be reduced to 
     writing, shall set forth with reasonable particularity the 
     grounds for the notice, and shall state that the alleged 
     violation or danger has been brought to the attention of the 
     employer and the employer has 
     [[Page S4372]]  refused to take any action to correct the 
     alleged violation or danger.
       ``(C)(i) The notice under subparagraph (A) shall be signed 
     by the employees or representative of employees and a copy 
     shall be provided to the employer or the agent of the 
     employer no later than the time of arrival of an occupational 
     safety and health agency inspector to conduct the inspection.
       ``(ii) Upon the request of the person giving the notice 
     under subparagraph (A), the name of the person and the names 
     of individual employees referred to in the notice shall not 
     appear in the copy or on any record published, released, or 
     made available pursuant to subsection (i), except that the 
     Secretary may disclose this information during prehearing 
     discovery in a contested case.
       ``(D) The Secretary may not make an inspection under this 
     section except on request by an employee or representative of 
     employees.
       ``(E) If upon receipt of the notice under subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary determines that the employee or employee 
     representative has brought the alleged violation or danger to 
     the attention of the employer and the employer has refused to 
     take corrective action, and there are reasonable grounds to 
     believe such violation or danger still exists, the Secretary 
     shall make a special inspection in accordance with this 
     section as soon as possible. The special inspection shall be 
     conducted for the limited purpose of determining whether such 
     violation or danger exists.
       ``(2) If the Secretary determines either before, or as a 
     result of, an inspection that there are not reasonable 
     grounds to believe a violation or danger exists, the 
     Secretary shall notify the complaining employee or employee 
     representative of the determination and, upon request by the 
     employee or employee representative, shall provide a written 
     statement of the reasons for the Secretary's final 
     disposition of the case.''.
       (d) Training and Enforcement.--Section 8 (29 U.S.C. 657) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (i); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(g) Inspections conducted under this section shall be 
     conducted by at least one person who has training in, and is 
     knowledgeable of, the industry or types of hazards being 
     inspected.
       ``(h)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall not conduct routine inspections of, or enforce any 
     standard, rule, regulation, or order under this Act with 
     respect to--
       ``(A) an employer who is engaged in a farming operation 
     that does not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs 100 
     or fewer employees; or
       ``(B) an employer of not more than 100 employees if the 
     employer is included within a category of employers having an 
     occupational injury or a lost workday case rate (determined 
     under the Standard Industrial Classification Code for which 
     such data are published) which is less than the national 
     average rate as most recently published by the Secretary 
     acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics under section 
     24.
       ``(2) In the case of an employer described in subparagraph 
     (B) of paragraph (1), such paragraph shall not be construed 
     to prohibit the Secretary from--
       ``(A) providing under this Act consultations, technical 
     assistance, and educational and training services;
       ``(B) conducting under this Act surveys and studies;
       ``(C) conducting inspections or investigations in response 
     to employee complaints, issuing citations for violations of 
     this Act found during an inspection, and assessing a penalty 
     for violations that are not corrected within a reasonable 
     abatement period;
       ``(D) taking any action authorized by this Act with respect 
     to imminent dangers;
       ``(E) taking any action authorized by this Act with respect 
     to health standards;
       ``(F) taking any action authorized by this Act with respect 
     to a report of an employment accident that is fatal to at 
     least one employee or that results in hospitalization of at 
     least three employees and taking any action pursuant to an 
     investigation of such report; and
       ``(G) taking any action authorized by this Act with respect 
     to complaint of discrimination against employees for 
     exercising their rights under this Act.''.
     SEC. 6. VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.

       (a) Program.--The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
     1970 (21 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 8 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 8A. VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall by regulation 
     establish a program to encourage voluntary employer and 
     employee efforts to provide safe and healthful working 
     conditions.
       ``(b) Exemption.--In establishing a program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall, in accordance with 
     subsection (c), provide an exemption from all safety and 
     health inspections and investigations with respect to a place 
     of employment maintained by an employer, except inspections 
     and investigations conducted for the purpose of--
       ``(1) determining the cause of a workplace accident that 
     resulted in the death of one or more employees or the 
     hospitalization of three or more employees; or
       ``(2) responding to a request for an inspection pursuant to 
     subsection (f)(1).
       ``(c) Requirements for Exemption.--In order to qualify for 
     the exemption provided under subsection (b), an employer 
     shall provide to the Secretary evidence that--
       ``(1) the place of employment or conditions of employment 
     have, during the preceding year, been reviewed or inspected 
     under--
       ``(A) a consultation program provided by any State agency 
     relating to occupational safety and health;
       ``(B) a certification or consultation program provided by 
     an insurance carrier or other private business entity 
     pursuant to a State program, law, or regulation; or
       ``(C) a workplace consultation program provided by any 
     other person certified by the Secretary for purposes of 
     providing such consultations; or
       ``(2) the place of employment has an exemplary safety 
     record and the employer maintains a safety and health program 
     for the workplace that--
       ``(A) includes--
       ``(i) procedures for assessing hazards to the employees of 
     the employer that are inherent to the operations or business 
     of the employer;
       ``(ii) procedures for correcting or controlling the hazards 
     in a timely manner based on the severity of the hazard; and
       ``(iii) employee participation in the program including, at 
     a minimum--

       ``(I) regular consultation between the employer and 
     nonsupervisory employees regarding safety and health issues; 
     and
       ``(II) opportunity for nonsupervisory employees to make 
     recommendations regarding hazards in the workplace and to 
     receive responses or to implement improvements in response to 
     such recommendations; and

       ``(B) provides assurances that participating nonsupervisory 
     employees have training or expertise on safety and health 
     issues consistent with the responsibilities of the employees.

     A program under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) 
     shall include methods that ensure that serious hazards 
     identified in the consultation are corrected within an 
     appropriate time.
       ``(d) Certification.--The Secretary may require that an 
     employer in order to claim the exemption under subsection (b) 
     give certification to the Secretary and notice to the 
     employees of the employer of the eligibility of the employer 
     for an exemption.''.
       (b) Definition.--Section 3 (29 U.S.C. 652) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(15) The term `exemplary safety record' means that an 
     employer has had, in the most recent annual reporting of the 
     employer required by the Occupational Safety and Health 
     Administration, no employee death caused by occupational 
     injury and fewer lost workdays due to occupational injury and 
     illness than the average for the industry of which the 
     employer is a part.''.

     SEC. 7. EMPLOYER DEFENSES.

       Section 9 (29 U.S.C. 658) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsections:
       ``(d) No citation may be issued under subsection (a) to an 
     employer unless the employer knew or with the exercise of 
     reasonable diligence would have known of the presence of the 
     alleged violation. No citation shall be issued under 
     subsection (a) to an employer for an alleged violation of 
     section 5, any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant 
     to section 6, any other regulation promulgated under this 
     Act, or any other occupational safety and health standard, if 
     such employer demonstrates that--
       ``(1) employees of such employer have been provided with 
     the proper training and equipment to prevent such a 
     violation;
       ``(2) work rules designed to prevent such a violation have 
     been established and adequately communicated to employees by 
     such employer; and
       ``(3) the failure of employees to observe work rules led to 
     the violation.
       ``(e) A citation issued under subsection (a) to an employer 
     that violates the requirements of any standard, rule, or 
     order promulgated pursuant to section 6 or any other 
     regulation promulgated under this Act shall be vacated if 
     such employer demonstrates that employees of such employer 
     were protected by alternative methods equally or more 
     protective of the safety and health of the employee than the 
     methods required by such standard, rule, order, or regulation 
     in the factual circumstances underlying the citation.
       ``(f) Subsections (d) and (e) shall not be construed to 
     eliminate or modify other defenses that may exist to any 
     citation.''.

     SEC. 8. THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION.

       (a) Procedure for Enforcement.--
       (1) Notification.--The first sentence of section 10(b) (29 
     U.S.C. 659(b)) is amended to read as follows: ``If the 
     Secretary has reason to believe an employer has failed to 
     correct a violation for which a citation has been issued 
     within the period permitted for the correction of such 
     violation, the Secretary shall notify the employer by 
     certified mail of such failure and of the penalty proposed to 
     be assessed under section 17 by reason of such failure, and 
     that the employer has 15 working days within which to notify 
     the Secretary that the employer desires to contest the 
     notification of the Secretary or the proposed assessment of 
     penalty. The period described in the first sentence shall not 
     begin to run until the time for contestation has expired or 
     the entry of a final order by the Commission in a contested 
     case initiated by the employer in good faith and not solely 
     for delay or avoidance of penalties.''.
     [[Page S4373]]   (2) Burden of proof.--Section 10 (29 U.S.C. 
     659) is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) In all hearings before the Commission relating to a 
     contested citation, the Secretary shall have the burden of 
     proving by a preponderance of the evidence--
       ``(1) the existence of a violation;
       ``(2) that the violation for which the citation was issued 
     constitutes a realistic hazard to the safety and health of 
     the affected employees;
       ``(3) that there is a likelihood that such hazard will 
     result in employee injury;
       ``(4) that the employer knew or with the exercise of 
     reasonable diligence should have known of the hazard and 
     violation; and
       ``(5) that a technically and economically feasible method 
     of compliance exists.''.
       (b) Judicial Review.--Section 11(a) (29 U.S.C. 660(a)) is 
     amended by inserting after ``conclusive.'' at the end of the 
     sixth sentence the following: ``The court shall make its own 
     determination as to questions of law, including the 
     reasonable interpretation of standards, and shall not accord 
     deference to either the Commission or the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 9. DISCRIMINATION.

       (a) Complaint.--Section 11(c)(2) (29 U.S.C. 660(c)(2)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2)(A)(i) Any employee who believes that such employee 
     has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by the 
     employer of such employee in violation of this subsection 
     may, within 30 days after such violation occurs, file a 
     complaint with the Secretary alleging such discrimination.
       ``(ii) A complaint may not be filed under clause (i) after 
     the expiration of the 30-day period described in such clause.
       ``(B)(i) Upon receipt of a complaint under subparagraph (A) 
     and as the Secretary considers appropriate, the Secretary 
     shall conduct an investigation.
       ``(ii) If upon such investigation, the Secretary determines 
     that the provisions of this subsection have been violated, 
     the Secretary shall attempt to eliminate the alleged 
     violation by informal methods.
       ``(iii) Nothing said or done, during the use of the 
     informal methods applied under clause (ii) may be made public 
     by the Secretary or used as evidence in any subsequent 
     proceeding.
       ``(iv) The Secretary shall make a determination concerning 
     the complaint as soon as possible and, in any event, not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the filing of the 
     complaint.
       ``(C) If the Secretary is unable to resolve the alleged 
     violation through informal methods, the Secretary shall 
     notify the parties in writing that conciliation efforts have 
     failed.
       ``(D)(i) Not later than 90 days after the date on which the 
     Secretary notifies the parties under subparagraph (C) in 
     writing that conciliation efforts have failed, the Secretary 
     may then bring an action in any appropriate United States 
     district court against an employer described in subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(ii) The employer against whom an action under clause (i) 
     is brought may demand that the issue of discrimination be 
     determined by jury trial.
       ``(E) Upon a showing of discrimination under subparagraph 
     (D)(ii), the Secretary may seek, and the court may award, any 
     and all of the following types of relief:
       ``(i) An injunction to enjoin a continued violation of this 
     subsection.
       ``(ii) Reinstatement of the employee to the same or 
     equivalent position.
       ``(iii) Reinstatement of full benefits and seniority 
     rights.
       ``(iv) Compensation for lost wages and benefits.
       ``(F) This subsection shall be the exclusive means of 
     securing a remedy for any aggrieved employee.''.
       (b) Access to Records.--Section 11(c)(3) (29 U.S.C. 
     660(c)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Any records of the Secretary, including the files of 
     the Secretary, relating to investigations and enforcement 
     proceedings pursuant to this subsection shall not be subject 
     to inspection and examination by the public while such 
     inspections and proceedings are open or pending in the United 
     States district court.''.

     SEC. 10. INJUNCTION AGAINST IMMINENT DANGER.

       Section 13 (29 U.S.C. 662) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (c);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (a) and (b) as subsections 
     (b) and (c), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so redesignated 
     by paragraph (2)) the following new subsection:
       ``(a)(1)(A)(i) If the Secretary determines, on the basis of 
     an inspection or investigation under this section, that a 
     condition or practice in a place of employment is such that 
     an imminent danger to safety or health exists that could 
     reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical 
     harm or permanent impairment of the health or functional 
     capacity of employees if not corrected immediately or before 
     the imminence of such danger can be eliminated through the 
     enforcement procedures otherwise provided by this Act, the 
     Secretary--
       ``(I) may inform the employer, and provide notice by 
     posting at the place of employment to the affected employees 
     of the danger; and
       ``(II) shall request that the condition or practice be 
     corrected immediately or that the affected employees be 
     immediately removed from exposure to such danger.
       ``(ii) A notice under clause (i) shall be removed by the 
     Secretary from the place of employment not later than 72 
     hours after the notice was first posted unless a court in an 
     action brought under subsection (c) requires that the notice 
     be maintained.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall not prevent the continued 
     activity of employees whose presence is necessary to avoid, 
     correct, or remove the imminent danger or to maintain the 
     capacity of a continuous process operation to resume normal 
     operations without a cessation of operations or where 
     cessation of operations is necessary, to permit the cessation 
     to be accomplished in a safe and orderly way.
       ``(2) No employer shall discharge, or in any manner 
     discriminate against any employee, because the employee has 
     refused to perform a duty that has been identified as the 
     source of an imminent danger by a notice posted pursuant to 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 11. SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.

       Section 16 (29 U.S.C. 655) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``16.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(b) The Secretary shall publish and make available to 
     employers a model injury prevention program that if completed 
     by the employer shall be deemed to meet the requirement for 
     an exemption under section 8A or a reduction in penalty under 
     section 17(a)(2)(B).
       ``(c) The Secretary shall establish and implement a program 
     to provide technical assistance and consultative services for 
     employers and employees, either directly or by grant or 
     contract, concerning work site safety and health and 
     compliance with this Act. Such assistance shall be targeted 
     at small employers and the most hazardous industries.
       ``(d) This subsection authorizes the provision of 
     consultative services to employers through cooperative 
     agreements between the States and the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration. The consultative services provided 
     under a cooperative agreement under this subsection shall be 
     the same type of services described in part 1908 of title 39 
     of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(e) Not less than one-fourth of the annual appropriation 
     made to the Secretary to carry out this Act shall be expended 
     for the purposes described in this section.''.

     SEC. 12. PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 17 (29 U.S.C. 666) is amended--
       (1) by striking out subsections (a), (b), (c), (f), (i), 
     (j), and (k);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), (g), (h), and 
     (l) as subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively; 
     and
       (3) by inserting after ``17.'' the following:
       ``(a)(1) Any employer who violates the requirements of 
     section 5, any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant 
     to section 6, or any other regulation promulgated under this 
     Act may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $7,000. 
     The Commission shall have authority to assess all civil 
     penalties provided for in this section, giving due 
     consideration to the appropriateness of the penalty with 
     respect to--
       ``(A) the size of the employer;
       ``(B) the number of employees exposed to the violation;
       ``(C) the likely severity of any injuries directly 
     resulting from such violation;
       ``(D) the probability that the violation could result in 
     injury or illness;
       ``(E) the good faith of the employer in correcting the 
     violation after the violation has been identified;
       ``(F) the extent to which employee misconduct was 
     responsible for the violation; and
       ``(G) the effect of the penalty on the ability of the 
     employee to stay in business.
       ``(2) In assessing penalties under this section the 
     Commission shall have authority to determine whether 
     violations should be classified as willful, repeated, 
     serious, other than serious, or de minimus. Regardless of the 
     classification of a violation, there shall be only one 
     penalty assessed for each violation. The Commission may not 
     enhance the penalty based on the number of employees exposed 
     to the violation or the number of instances of the same 
     violation.
       ``(3)(A) A penalty assessed under paragraph (1) shall be 
     reduced by 25 percent in any case in which the employer--
       ``(i) maintains a written safety and health program for the 
     work site at which the violation for which the penalty was 
     assessed occurred; or
       ``(ii) shows that the work site at which the violation for 
     which the penalty was assessed occurred has an exemplary 
     safety record.
       ``(B) If the employer maintains a program described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) and has the record described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii), the penalty shall be reduced by 50 
     percent.
       ``(4) No penalty shall be assessed against an employer for 
     a violation other than a violation previously cited by the 
     Secretary or a violation that creates an imminent danger or 
     has caused death or a willful violation that has caused 
     serious injury to an employee.''.
       (b) Criminal Penalties.--Section 17(c) (29 U.S.C. 666(c)) 
     (as so redesignated by subsection (a)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new sentence: ``No employer shall be 
     subject to any State or Federal criminal prosecution arising 
     out of a workplace accident other than under this 
     subsection.''.
     [[Page S4374]] SEC. 13. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN OCCUPATIONAL 
                   SAFETY AND HEALTH FUNCTIONS.

       (a) Transfer of Functions; Repeal.--
       (1) National institute of occupational safety and health.--
     The functions and authorities provided to the National 
     Institute of Occupational Safety and Health under section 22 
     of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 
     671) are transferred to the Secretary of Labor.
       (2) Secretary of health and human services.--The 
     responsibilities and authorities of the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services under sections 20, 21, and 22 of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 669, 
     670, and 671) are transferred to the Secretary of Labor.
       (3) Repeal.--Section 22 (29 U.S.C. 671) is repealed.
       (b) Additional Functions.--In carrying out the functions 
     transferred under subsection (a), the Secretary of Labor 
     shall take such actions as are necessary to avoid duplication 
     of programs and to maximize training, education, and research 
     under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
     U.S.C. 671 et seq.).
       (c) References.--
       (1) In general.--Each reference in any other Federal law, 
     Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of 
     authority, or any document of or relating to--
       (A) the head of the transferred office, or the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, with regard to functions 
     transferred under subsection (a), shall be deemed to refer to 
     the Secretary of Labor; and
       (B) a transferred office with regard to functions 
     transferred under subsection (a), shall be deemed to refer to 
     the Department of Labor.
       (2) Definition.--For the purpose of this subsection, the 
     term ``office'' includes any office, administration, agency, 
     institute, unit, organizational entity, or component thereof.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the effective date of this Act, if the Secretary of Labor 
     determines (after consultation with the appropriate 
     committees of Congress and the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget) that technical and conforming 
     amendments to Federal statutes are necessary to carry out the 
     changes made by this section, the Secretary of Labor shall 
     prepare and submit to Congress recommended legislation 
     containing the amendments.
     SEC. 14. PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

       The Occupational Safety and Health Act is amended--
       (1) by striking sections 28 through 31;
       (2) by redesignating sections 32, 33, and 34 as sections 
     29, 30, and 31, respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after section 27, the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 28. ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTING.

       ``(a) In General.--Whenever there exists the reasonable 
     probability that the safety or health of any employee could 
     be endangered because of the use of alcohol or a controlled 
     substance in the workplace, the employer of such employee may 
     establish and implement an alcohol and substance abuse 
     testing program in accordance with subsection (b).
       ``(b) Standards.--The Secretary shall establish standards 
     under section 6 for substance abuse and alcohol testing 
     programs established under subsection (a) as follows:
       ``(1) The substance abuse testing program shall conform, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, to subpart B of the mandatory 
     guidelines for Federal workplace drug testing programs 
     published on April 11, 1988, by the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services at 53 F.R. 11979 and any amendments adopted to 
     such guidelines.
       ``(2) The alcohol testing program shall include an alcohol 
     breath analysis and shall conform, to the maximum extent 
     practicable; to any guidelines developed by the Secretary of 
     Transportation for alcohol testing of mass transit employees 
     under the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1992.
       ``(c) Testing Prior to Employment.--This section shall not 
     be construed to prohibit an employer from requiring an 
     employee to submit to and pass an alcohol or substance abuse 
     test--
       ``(1) prior to employment by the employer;
       ``(2) on a for cause basis or where the employer has 
     reasonable suspicion to believe that such employee is using 
     or is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled 
     substance;
       ``(3) where such test is administered as part of a 
     scheduled medical examination;
       ``(4) in the case of an accident or incident involving the 
     actual or potential loss of human life, bodily injury, or 
     property damage; or
       ``(5) during and for a reasonable period of time (not to 
     exceed 5 years) after the conclusion of an alcohol or 
     substance abuse treatment program.''.

     SEC. 15. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

       The Secretary of Labor shall conduct a continuing 
     comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of each 
     standard in effect under section 6 of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act of 1970. The Secretary shall report the 
     results of the analysis to Congress upon the expiration of 
     the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and every 2 years thereafter.

     SEC. 16. LABOR RELATIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--Paragraph (5) of section 2 of the 
     National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(5)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The term does 
     not include a safety committee that is comprised of an 
     employer and the employees of the employer and that is 
     jointly established by the employer and the employees of the 
     employer, or by the employer and a labor organization 
     representing the employees of the employer, to carry out 
     efforts to reduce injuries and disease arising out of 
     employment.''.
       (b) Unfair Labor Practices.--Section 8(a)(2) of the 
     National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(2)) is amended 
     by inserting before the semicolon at the end thereof the 
     following: ``Provided, further, That it shall not constitute 
     an unfair practice under this paragraph for an employer and 
     the employees of the employer, or for an employer and a labor 
     organization representing the employees of the employer, to 
     jointly establish a safety committee in which the employer 
     and the employees of the employer carry out efforts to reduce 
     injuries and disease arising out of employment;''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. 
        Abraham, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Coats):
  S. 593. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
authorize the export of new drugs and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                 FDA export reform and enhancement act

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, almost 10 years ago, the Congress had a 
good idea.
  In 1986, we approved legislation which took the unprecedented step of 
allowing pharmaceutical manufacturers to export their products to 21 
foreign nations, without prior FDA approval.
  Many though it was a bold step at the time.
  It turned out to be a good idea which worked well.
  Today, 9 years later, I rise to introduce legislation to take another 
step in that process. I am joined in cosponsorship of this legislation 
by Senator Gregg, and by Senators Kassebaum, Abraham, Frist, and Coats.
  Let me at this time recognize the outstanding leadership that our 
House colleague, Representative Fred Upton, has shown in both drafting 
and marshalling considerable support for this legislation. This bill 
would not be possible without Mr. Upton's leadership.
  Undoubtedly some will also consider this legislation bold. But I 
submit to my colleagues that it will also turn out to be a good idea 
which works well. Even better than the 1986 law, which I authorized.
  The Hatch-Gregg legislation, the FDA Export Reform and Enhancement 
Act of 1995, has a simple premise: that the Food and Drug 
Administration cannot continue to be the traffic cop for world trade in 
medical goods.
  Current Food and Drug Administration regulations significantly 
restrict the ability of U.S. manufacturers of human and animal drugs, 
biological, and medical devices to export their products to world 
markets.
  Under section 801(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 
exporting a medical device that is not commercially distributed in the 
U.S. is subject to FDA receipt of the receiving country's approval of 
the device and FDA determination that the export would not be contrary 
to the public health and safety of the importing country.
  The FDA requires an export permit for unapproved, class III devices, 
those requiring pre-market approval [PMA's]. Many countries also 
request a certificate of free sale from the United States indicating 
that the product has been approved in the United States. This is 
basically a rubber stamp provided by the FDA on a voluntary basis.
  The irony in this situation is that a manufacturer cannot export 
certain unapproved medical devices, even if they have been approved by 
the foreign country with an established regulatory system.
  Also under section 801(e) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 
pharmaceutical companies are only free to export unapproved drugs to 21 
countries delineated in the law. Those countries are; Australia, 
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Federal
 Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, 
Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, 
Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

  Prior to 1986, there was no authority for manufacturers of FDA-
regulated 
[[Page S4375]]  products to send those products overseas unless they 
were first approved by the FDA. The Pharmaceutical Export Act of 1986, 
allowed, for the first time, manufacturers to export their products to 
the above list of countries, provided the sponsor is pursuing a new 
drug application [NDA] in the United States.
  Our experience since that time has shown that the law is still too 
rigid. The list of countries is too proscriptive, and the regulatory 
requirements unnecessarily burdensome.
  For example, the list does not include Israel. It does not include 
Eastern European countries or most of the Pacific rim. There is near 
universal agreement this needs to be rectified.
  Although the 1986 act represented a good step forward, it has led to 
the development of a patchwork quilt of bureaucracy that has forced 
U.S. manufacturers to establish and maintain facilities outside the 
United States.
  For example, prior approval of export plans by FDA is required to 
ship products overseas. To ship bulk or finished products, companies 
must apply for prior approval from FDA, be granted approval, and ship 
the products. This process takes 3-12 months plus transportation time, 
creating costly delays that reduce market access and penetration by 
U.S. firms.
  It is important to note that market conditions in importing companies 
may dictate the sale of products utilizing dosage strengths, e.g., 250 
milligrams versus 125 milligrams, formulations--caplet, tablet, etc.--
or inert ingredients different from those approved or being pursued in 
the U.S. export of similar, but not identical, products is currently 
prohibited.
  Another problem is that FDA labeling requirements mandate that 
packaged exports be labeled in English for the FDA-approved 
indications, regardless of the linguistic or regulatory requirements of 
the importing country.
  At the same time, the law imposes time-consuming requirements on FDA, 
whose resources should be better directed to reviewing new, life-saving 
medicines and technologies.
  It is clear that FDA is making progress in speeding up review times 
for drugs and devices, although there still are problems.
  For example, FDA says that its average processing time for export 
permits for medical devices has moved from 65 days in 1993 to 16 days 
in 1994. For export certificates, the FDA says its processing times 
have declined from 51.5 days in 1993 to 10 days in 1994.
  I must commend the Center director, Dr. Bruce Burlington, and the 
Office of Device Evaluation Director, Dr. Susan Alpert, for that 
progress. Their work has really made a difference.
  But the FDA statistics don't tell the whole story. These
   are average review times. In 1993, in some cases, it took the FDA 
over 270 days to approve export permits, and still up to 150 days for 
approval in 1994. In 1994 they processed 756 permit applications, and 
1,469 certificates.

  Not only can FDA review be time-consuming, but using it is a measure 
of export delays is misleading. Manufacturers have to compile the data 
to send to FDA requesting export. And, they have to go to the importing 
country and get a letter proving that the country has approved the 
device for import. This, too, adds substantial time to the process 
upfront.
  Another concern we have is about the potential for FDA reprogramming 
its resources away from this activity to another. We have no assurance 
that the statistics will stay at the current rate.
  But I feel compelled to raise the larger point.
  I think we have to ask ourselves if this export review is how we want 
to be spending Government resources in this day and age. If other 
nations wish to receive the benefits of our technology, why must we 
insist on approving that technology first?
  In a time of unprecedented harmony in worldwide trade, as reflected 
by recent passage of GATT, our laws relating to the export of foods, 
drugs, medical devices and cosmetics should reflect that comity as 
well. The paternalistic approach evidenced in our current law is no 
longer compatible with today's world marketplace.
  The Hatch-Gregg bill remedies this situation by allowing 
manufacturers to export their products in any countries belonging to 
the World Trade Organization [WTO]. A second provision allows export to 
non-WTO countries unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
determines that the possibility of the reimportation of the device or 
drug into the United States presents an imminent hazard to the public 
health and safety of the United States and the only means of limiting 
the hazard is to prohibit the export of the device or drug.
  The products to be exported must accord to the specifications of the 
foreign purchaser. They must not be in conflict with the laws of the 
country to which they are intended for export. They must be labeled for 
export on the outside of the shipping package. They must not be sold or 
offered for sale in domestic commerce. And they cannot have been 
``banned,'' or turned down for approval here in the United States.
  This is not a health bill, Mr. President, S. 593 is about exports and 
jobs. It is about U.S. competitiveness abroad.
  The U.S. drug manufacturing industry accounts for about $60 billion 
in annual production, with a trade surplus of $800 million in 1993. 
Last year, U.S. drug companies accounted for about a third of total 
world production.
  There are approximately 11,000 medical device companies in the United 
States which make between 60,000 and 80,000 different brands or models. 
Most of these companies are small. Two-thirds of the companies have 
fewer than 50 employees.
  In Utah, we have over 100 device manufacturing companies, some of the 
finest in the Nation, and they are really feeling the pinch of our 
restrictive export policies.
  The U.S. medical device manufacturing industry accounts for more than 
$50 billion in production and had a trade surplus in 1994 of $4.9 
billion.
  Last year, U.S. companies accounted for 46 percent of global 
production. Moreover, this industry has been a major source of 
employment and export growth in recent years.
  Between 1988 and 1993, 32 percent of production growth for this 
industry went to serve strong overseas demand for medical technology. 
During the same period, employment grew by more than 4 percent a year 
in this industry.
  In June 1944, the Gallup Organization surveyed 58 medical electronics 
manufacturing companies which--based on their estimates--serve as many 
as 76 million patients around the world with their products.
  These companies indicated the following:
  Eighty-three percent said they experienced excessive delays by FDA 
for approval of new products;
  Forty percent said they reduced the number of employees in the United 
States due to FDA delays;
  Twenty-nine percent said they increased their investment in non-U.S. 
operations; and
  Twenty-two percent said they moved U.S. jobs overseas.
  This provides compelling evidence that U.S. regulatory policies are 
driving medical device manufacturing companies offshore. The same thing 
is happening with pharmaceuticals.
  Manufacturers experience so much red-tape in sending their products 
overseas, that they prefer to make them overseas. The United States is 
a net loser: in jobs and productivity.
  We should not allow this to continue.
  Mr. President, almost a week ago, the administration announced it was 
undertaking several FDA reforms, including a review of its export 
policy.
  I am hopeful that the administration will seriously consider our 
legislation so that we may work together to see these needed changes in 
the law are made.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today is 
designed to address a number of problems that currently prohibit 
American companies from competing in the international marketplace: the 
Food and Drug Administration's [FDA] export policies on the overseas 
sale of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. The FDA has 
repeatedly stated that export issues are not within their realm of 
expertise, and that they would not oppose a new standard as put forth 
by Congress.
  We are here to submit that new standard. This bill does not call for 
radical measures that would jeopardize 
[[Page S4376]]  the safety of citizens of other countries. This bill 
does not simply allow unapproved products to be randomly shipped around 
the world. It does not allow export products to be sold domestically.
  What this bill does do is recognize the authority of our 
international trading partners by acknowledging that WTO [World Trade 
Organization] members have an evolved import system to control what 
products are being brought into their country, a step up from general 
GATT signatories. It permits WTO countries to decide for themselves 
whether or not they want to approve a product to be available to their 
citizens, and specifies a notification process by U.S. manufacturers to 
the FDA for those nations that are not WTO members. Our bill specifies 
that a device which is banned in the United States by the FDA cannot be 
exported. This legislation provides recourse to the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services to prohibit exports if she judges there to be an 
``imminent hazard'' that the product would be shipped back into the 
United States, threatening to the health or safety of consumers.
  These are all critical components and appropriate to promoting U.S. 
manufacturers in the international marketplace. The bill is designed to 
allow U.S. medical technology and products, the best in the world, to 
compete fairly with foreign manufacturers. And it allows autonomy among 
our trading partners.
  I as pleased to hear the President address FDA reform in his speech 
on March 16 as part of ``Reinventing Government.'' This is a positive 
step in dealing with a number of issues that stem from the current 
regulatory climate at this, and many other, Federal agencies. I look 
forward to working with the administration and my colleagues here on 
the Hill to reform the policies and procedures of this important 
agency.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 594. A bill to provide for the administration of certain Presidio 
properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


                    presidio trust establishment act

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to minimize 
the costs to the taxpayer of the newest addition to our National Park 
System, the Presidio of San Francisco.
  In 1972, Congress recognized the park potential of the Presidio. At 
that time Congressman Phil Burton's legislation creating the Golden 
Gate National Recreation Area [GGNRA] was drawn to include the 
Presidio, and provided that the Presidio would become a national park 
when it was no longer needed by the Army. Thus when the Army vacated 
the base last September, the Park Service assumed responsibility for 
administering the Presidio as part of the GGNRA.
  It is projected that the new park will attract 10 million or more 
visitors a year. Those visitors will enjoy one of the most beautiful 
and historic urban open spaces in the world. The park offers 
spectacular vistas of the Pacific Ocean, the Golden Gate, the Marin 
Headlands, San Francisco Bay, and the skyline of San Francisco.
  The Presidio also offers over 200 years of military history, from its 
founding in 1776, through the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and 
World Wars I and II. Presidio architecture represents a remarkable 
collection of structures dating from the days of Mexican sovereignty 
over California. The entire Presidio was declared a national historic 
landmark in 1962.
  The bill we introduce today will establish the Presidio Trust, a 
public entity modeled on the successful Pennsylvania Avenue Development 
Corporation.
  The Trust will help us put the Presidio's buildings to work for the 
park. Rents and other revenues will be retained to restore and conserve 
the Presidio's extraordinary natural and historic resources.
  The Trust will manage the facilities at the Presidio which are not of 
the type normally administered by the National Park Service. It will be 
responsible for leasing, maintenance, and property management--
consistent with the park management plan and the legislation creating 
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The open space, forests, and 
recreational land will be managed by the Park Service as they are doing 
in other parts of the GGNRA.
  Critical to the success of this undertaking will be the Presidio's 
ability to generate revenues to offset the costs of operation and 
capital improvement. The Trust will have the flexibility necessary to 
negotiate terms of leases and other contracts, to leverage lease 
revenues, and to utilize a staff qualified in financial management. It 
will be accountable to the public through a public-private governing 
board of directors, annual auditing and reporting requirements, and a 
requirement to adhere to the publicly approved general management plan 
for the Presidio and the GGNRA authorizing legislation.
  According to expert analysis, the Presidio Trust established by this 
bill would produce savings of 20 to 30 percent when compared to the 
cost of total Federal management of the Presidio. The Presidio is an 
example of defense conversion that will be cost effective while serving 
an important national purpose.
  The Presidio is one of the Nation's great treasures. If we act now, 
we can ensure its successful transformation from a military base into 
one of the world's outstanding urban parks.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 594
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Presidio, located amidst the incomparable scenic 
     splendor of the Golden Gate, is one of America's great 
     natural and historic sites;
       (2) the Presidio is the oldest continuously operating 
     military post in the Nation dating from 1776, and was 
     designated as National Historic Landmark in 1962;
       (3) preservation of the cultural and historic integrity of 
     the Presidio for public use recognizes its significant role 
     in the history of the United States;
       (4) the Presidio, in its entirety, is a part of the Golden 
     Gate National Recreation Area, in accordance with Public Law 
     92-589;
       (5) as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 
     the Presidio's outstanding natural, historic, scenic, 
     cultural, and recreational resources must be managed in a 
     manner which is consistent with sound principles of land use 
     planning and management, and which protects the Presidio from 
     development and uses which would destroy the scenic beauty 
     and historic and natural character of the area; and
       (6) the Presidio will be managed through an innovative 
     public/private partnership that minimizes cost to the United 
     States Treasury and makes efficient use of private sector 
     resources that could be utilized in the public interest.

     SEC. 2. INTERIM LEASING AUTHORITY.

       The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') is authorized to negotiate 
     and enter into leases, at fair market rental and without 
     regard to section 321 of chapter 314 of the Act of June 30, 
     1932 (40 U.S.C. 303b), for all or part of the Presidio of San 
     Francisco that is under the administrative jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary until such time as the property concerned is 
     transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the 
     Presidio Trust. Notwithstanding sections 1341 and 3302 of 
     title 31 of the United States Code, the proceeds from any 
     such lease shall be retained by the Secretary and used for 
     the preservation, restoration, operation and maintenance, 
     improvement, repair and related expenses incurred with 
     respect to Presidio properties. For purposes of any such 
     lease, the Secretary may adjust the rental by taking into 
     account any amounts to be expended by the lessee for 
     preservation, maintenance, restoration, improvement, repair 
     and related expenses with respect to properties within the 
     Presidio.

     SEC. 3. THE PRESIDIO TRUST.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a body corporate 
     within the Department of the Interior to be known as the 
     Presidio Trust (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Trust'').
       (b) Transfer.--(1) The Secretary shall transfer to the 
     administrative jurisdiction of the Trust those areas commonly 
     known as the Letterman/LAIR complex, Fort Scott, Main Post, 
     Cavalry Stables, Presidio Hill, Wherry Housing, East Housing, 
     the structures at Crissy Field, roads, utilities or other 
     infrastructure servicing the properties and such other 
     properties that the Secretary deems appropriate, as depicted 
     on the map referred to in this subsection. The Trust and the 
     Secretary shall agree on the use and occupancy of buildings 
     and facilities necessary to house and support activities of 
     the National Park Service at the Presidio.
     [[Page S4377]]   (2) Within 60 days after enactment of this 
     section, the Secretary shall prepare a map identifying 
     properties to be conveyed to the Trust.
       (3) The transfer for administrative jurisdiction shall 
     occur within 60 days after appointments are made to the board 
     of Directors.
       (4) The Secretary shall transfer, with the transfer of 
     administrative jurisdiction over any property, all leases, 
     concessions, licenses, permits, programmatic agreements and 
     other agreements affecting such property and any revenues and 
     unobligated funds associated with such leases, concessions, 
     licenses, permits, and agreements.
       (c) Board of Directors.--
       (1) In general.--The powers and management of the Trust 
     shall be vested in a Board of Directors consisting of the 
     following 5 members:
       (A) The Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary's 
     designee.
       (B) 4 individuals, who are not employees of the Federal 
     Government, appointed by the President, who shall possess 
     extensive knowledge and experience in one or more of the 
     fields of city planning, finance, and real estate. At least 3 
     of these individuals shall reside in the region in which the 
     Presidio is located.
       (2) Terms.--The President shall make the appointments 
     referred to in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) within 90 
     days and in such a manner as to ensure staggered 4-year 
     terms. Any vacancy under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) 
     shall be filled in the same manner in which the original 
     appointment was made, and any member appointed to fill a 
     vacancy shall serve for the remainder of the term for which 
     his or her predecessor was appointed. No appointed director 
     may serve more than 8 years in consecutive terms. No member 
     of the Board of Directors may have a financial interest in 
     any tenant of the Presidio.
       (3) Organization and compensation.--The Board shall 
     organize itself in such a manner as it deems most appropriate 
     to effectively carry out the authorized activities of the 
     Trust. Board members shall serve without pay, but may be 
     reimbursed for the actual and necessary travel and 
     subsistence expenses incurred by them in the performance of 
     the duties of the Trust.
       (4) Liability of directors.--Members of the Board of 
     Directors shall not be considered Federal employees by virtue 
     of their membership on the Board, except for purposes of the 
     Federal Tort Claims Act.
       (5) Public liaison.--The Board shall establish procedures 
     whereby liaison with the public, through the Golden Gate 
     National Recreation Area Advisory Commission, and the 
     National Park Service, shall be maintained.
       (d) Duties and Authorities.--In accordance with the 
     purposes set forth in this Act and in section 1 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to establish the Golden Gate National 
     Recreation Area in the State of California, and for other 
     purposes'', approved October 27, 1972 (Public Law 92-589; 86 
     Stat. 1299; 16 U.S.C. 460bb), the Trust shall manage the 
     leasing, maintenance, rehabilitation, repair and improvement 
     of property within the Presidio which is under its 
     administrative jurisdiction. The Trust may participate in the 
     development of programs and activities at the properties that 
     have been transferred to the Trust. In exercising its powers 
     and duties, the Trust shall act in accordance with the 
     approved General Management Plan, as amended, for the 
     Presidio (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Plan'') and shall have the following authorities:
       (1) The Trust is authorized to manage, lease, maintain, 
     rehabilitate and improve, either directly or by agreement, 
     those properties within the Presidio which are transferred to 
     the Trust by the Secretary.
       (2)(A) The Trust is authorized to negotiate and enter into 
     such agreements, leases, contracts and other arrangements 
     with any person, firm, association, organization, corporation 
     or governmental entity, including without limitation entities 
     of Federal, State and local governments (except any agreement 
     to convey fee title to any property located at the Presidio) 
     as are necessary and appropriate to finance and carry out its 
     authorized activities. Agreements under this paragraph may be 
     entered into without regard to section 321 of the Act of June 
     30, 1992 (40 U.S.C. 303b).
       (B) Except as provided in subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), 
     Federal laws and regulations governing procurement by Federal 
     agencies shall apply to the Trust.
       (C) The Secretary may authorize the Trust, in exercising 
     authority under section 303(g) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 253(g)) 
     relating to simplified purchase procedures, to use as the 
     dollar limit of each purchase or contract under this 
     subsection an amount which does not exceed $500,000.
       (D) The Secretary may authorize the Trust, in carrying out 
     the requirement of section 18 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) to furnish the 
     Secretary of Commerce for publication notices of proposed 
     procurement actions, to use as the applicable dollar 
     threshold for each expected procurement an amount which does 
     not exceed $1,000,000.
       (E) The Trust shall establish procedures for lease 
     agreements and other agreements for use and occupancy of 
     Presidio facilities, including a requirement that in entering 
     into such agreements the Trust shall obtain such competition 
     as is practicable in the circumstances.
       (3) The Trust is authorized to appoint and fix the 
     compensation and duties of an executive director and such 
     other officers and employees as it deems necessary without 
     regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service, and may 
     pay them without regard to the provisions of chapter 51, and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53, title 5, United States Code 
     (relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates).
       (4) To augment or encourage the use of non-Federal funds to 
     finance capital improvements on Presidio properties 
     transferred to its jurisdiction, the Trust, in addition to 
     its other authorities, shall have the following authorities:
       (A) The authority to guarantee any lender against loss of 
     principal or interest on any construction loan, provided that 
     (i) the terms of the guarantee are approved by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury, (ii) adequate guarantee authority is 
     provided in appropriations Acts, and (iii) such guarantees 
     are structured so as to minimize potential cost to the 
     Federal Government.
       (B) The authority, subject to available appropriations, to 
     make loans to the occupants of property managed by the Trust 
     for the preservation, restoration, maintenance, or repair of 
     such property.
       (C) The authority to issue obligations to the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, but only if the Secretary of the Treasury 
     agrees to purchase such obligations after determining that 
     the projects to be funded from the proceeds thereof are 
     credit worthy and that a repayment schedule is established. 
     The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use as a 
     public debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any 
     securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States 
     Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued 
     under such chapter are extended to include any purchase of 
     such notes or obligations acquired by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury under this subsection. The aggregate amount of 
     obligations issued under this subparagraph which are 
     outstanding at any one time may not exceed $150,000,000. 
     Obligations issued under this subparagraph shall be in such 
     forms and denominations, bearing such maturities, and subject 
     to such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, and shall bear interest at a rate 
     determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into 
     consideration current market yields on outstanding marketable 
     obligations of the United States of comparable maturities. No 
     funds appropriated to the Trust may be used for repayment of 
     principal or interest on, or redemption of, obligations 
     issued under this paragraph. All obligations purchased under 
     authority of this subparagraph must be authorized in advance 
     in appropriations Acts.
       (D) The Trust shall be deemed to be a public agency for the 
     purpose of entering into joint exercise of powers agreements 
     pursuant to California government code section 6500 and 
     following.
       (5) The Trust may solicit and accept donations of funds, 
     property, supplies, or services from individuals, 
     foundations, corporations and other private or public 
     entities for the purpose of carrying out its duties. The 
     Trust shall maintain philanthropic liaison with the Golden 
     Gate National Park Association, the fund raising association 
     for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
       (6) All proceeds received by the Trust shall be retained by 
     the Trust without further appropriation and used to offset 
     the costs of administration, preservation, restoration, 
     operation, maintenance, repair and related expenses incurred 
     by the Trust with respect to such properties under its 
     jurisdiction. Upon the request of the Trust, the Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall invest excess moneys of the Trust in 
     public debt securities with maturities suitable to the needs 
     of the Trust.
       (7) The Trust may sue and be sued in its own name to the 
     same extent as the Federal Government. Litigation arising out 
     of the activities of the Trust shall be conducted by the 
     Attorney General, as needed; the Trust may retain private 
     attorneys to provide advice and counsel.
       (8) The Trust shall have all necessary and proper powers 
     for the exercise of the authorities invested in it.
       (9) For the purpose of compliance with applicable laws and 
     regulations concerning properties transferred to the Trust by 
     the Secretary, the Trust shall negotiate directly with 
     regulatory authorities.
       (e) Insurance.--The Trust shall procure insurance against 
     any loss in connection with the properties managed by it or 
     its authorized activities as is reasonable and customary.
       (f) Building Code Compliance.--The Trust shall ensure that 
     all properties under its jurisdiction are brought into 
     compliance with all applicable Federal building codes and 
     regulations within 10 years after the enactment of this Act.
       (g) Taxes.--The Trust shall be exempt from all taxes and 
     special assessments of every kind in the State of California, 
     and its political subdivisions, including the city and county 
     of San Francisco to the same extent as the Secretary.
       (h) Financial Information and Report.--(1) Financial 
     statements of the Trust shall be audited annually in 
     accordance with section 9105 of title 31 of the United States 
     Code.
       (2) At the end of each calendar year, the Trust shall 
     submit to the Secretary and the 
     [[Page S4378]]  Congress a comprehensive and detailed report 
     of its operations, activities, and accomplishments for the 
     prior fiscal year. The report also shall include a section 
     that describes in general terms the Trust's goals for the 
     current fiscal year.
       (i) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall preclude 
     the Secretary from exercising any of the Secretary's lawful 
     powers within the Presidio.
       (j) Leasing.--In managing and leasing the properties 
     transferred to it, the Trust should consider the extent to 
     which prospective tenants maximize the contribution to the 
     implementation of the General Management Plan and to the 
     generation of revenues to offset costs of the Presidio. The 
     Trust shall give priority to the following categories of 
     tenants: tenants that enhance the financial viability of the 
     Presidio thereby contributing to the preservation of the 
     scenic beauty and natural character of the area; tenants that 
     facilitate the cost-effective preservation of historic 
     buildings through their reuse of such buildings, or tenants 
     that promote through their activities the general 
     programmatic content of the plan.
       (k) Reversion.--In the event of failure or default, all 
     interests and assets of the Trust shall revert to the United 
     States to be administered by the Secretary.
       (l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     the activities of the Trust.
       (m) Separability of Provisions.--If any provisions of this 
     Act or the application thereof to any body, agency, 
     situation, or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of 
     the Act and the application of such provision to other 
     bodies, agencies, situations, or circumstances shall not be 
     affected thereby.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BYRD (for himself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 595. A bill to provide for the extension of a hydroelectric 
project located in the State of West Virginia; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


               extension of ferc license for grafton, wv

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I introduce, on behalf of myself and Senator 
Rockefeller, a bill to grant the city of Grafton, WV, a 4-year 
extension of its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] license to 
begin construction of a hydroelectric power project at Tygart Dam in 
Taylor County. This project is to be financed entirely by the city of 
Grafton and its investors through nonpublic equity and debt. This 
extension is necessary because the license expires during the current 
year and over $3 million has already been invested in this project. The 
hydroelectric project takes advantage of the existing dam on the Tygart 
River in order to generate power and will also include the development 
of recreational facilities. Extensive environmental studies on the 
project have been conducted in coordination with interested regulatory 
agencies. Without any contribution from the Federal Government, the 
city and its investors will finance the project, which will include 
fishing piers, walkways, picnic facilities, and a parking area.
  The city and its investors anticipate that the project would employ 
200 staff during the peak of construction, with a $1 million monthly 
payroll. The total construction payroll for the project is expected to 
be $15 million. The Grafton hydropower project will provide substantial 
taxes and other payments to various governmental entities during 
construction and operation. The Federal Government will benefit from 
this project since it will receive annual payments of $200,000 from the 
hydroelectric project. The Federal Government also will receive income 
tax from the project, as it will be privately financed. It is hoped 
that the license extension made possible by this bill will bring 
significant economic development to the Taylor County region of West 
Virginia.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Bradley):
  S. 596. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow 
deductions for advertising and promotional expenses for tobacco 
products; to the Committee on Finance.


          elimination of deductibility of tobacco advertising

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important 
piece of legislation that addresses a very serious problem in a 
commonsense way. During the budget debate in 1992 I offered an 
amendment to limit the tax deductibility of tobacco advertising. It 
didn't pass. And, because it didn't pass, the American taxpayers are 
still coughing up billions to promote smoking.
  The legislation I am introducing today would eliminate the taxpayer 
deductibility of tobacco advertising and promotion.
  These days we hear a lot of talk about cuts in school lunches, cuts 
in the WIC Program, cuts in investments to improve the health of 
Americans.
  I believe there's a better way to go--with commonsense cuts that 
promote the health of our economy and the health of our people.
  It's time for tobacco companies to quit blowing our tax dollars up in 
smoke with their big tobacco advertising campaigns. It's time for them 
to stop luring our kids into their deathtraps.
  According to the Federal Trade Commission the tobacco industry spent 
$5.2 billion in 1992 to advertise and promote cigarettes. But that's 
not just their money, it's ours, too. Because all of those expenses are 
tax deductible.
  In fact, American taxpayers are coughing up nearly $2 billion a year 
in tax subsidies and serving as a silent partner in helping big tobacco 
companies peddle their products and hook our kids.
  This taxpayer-subsidized multi-billion-dollar effort includes ads in 
magazines and newspapers, and outside advertising such as billboards, 
advertising at supermarkets and convenience stores, use of gifts, and 
sponsorship of sporting events.
  And all of this is designed to convince people that smoking is cool--
necessary for social acceptance and helps make one attractive to the 
opposite sex. It is deliberately designed to keep people smoking, but 
more importantly, to attract a new generation to the smoking habit.
  Every day, another $5 million of taxpayer money is used to promote a 
product that--when used as intended--causes disease, disability, and 
death.
  Every day, another 3,000 of America's children get hooked on smoking.
  Consider what the taxpayers receive for their money. We get Old Joe 
Camel. If you don't know who Joe Camel is just ask any first-grader.
  According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association, more 6-year-olds can identify Old Joe Camel than adults. 
In fact, just as many 6-year-olds can identify Old Joe Camel as they 
can Mickey Mouse.
  And his name recognition has really paid off--since the introduction 
of Old Joe, sales of Camel cigarettes to children under 18 went from $6 
million to over $476 million a year.
  But that's not all. Joe is branching out. And so are some of his 
competitors. They have all started what I call merchandising clubs in 
which you can smoke your way to all sorts of gifts.
  A study in this month's Consumer Reports magazine found that 11 
percent of children between the age of 12 to 17 owned at least one 
tobacco industry promotional item.
  And it only gets worse, cigarette companies not only know what kids 
like, they know where they live. The same poll in Consumer Reports 
found that 7.6 percent of teens received cigarette company mail at home 
addressed directly to them. If you carry those figures nationwide, that 
means 1.6 million children are on the tobacco mailing list.
  These campaigns are outrageous and they violate the industry's own 
cigarette advertising code. The industry has adopted a code that states 
that ``cigarette advertising shall not represent that cigarette smoking 
is essential to social prominence, distinction, success, or sexual 
attraction.
  But how does that square with these ads? How does that square with 
the Marlboro Aventure Team? How does that square with Joe Camel? It 
simply doesn't and we ought not subsidize it.
  Mr. President, I am also pleased to join Senator Lautenberg in 
legislation he is offering today to allow American taxpayers to recover 
Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health program costs associated 
with tobacco-related illnesses. For too long the tobacco companies have 
been raking in profits while the American taxpayers have been coughing 
up billions in health care costs attributable to tobacco related 
illness.
  The Medicare and Medicaid share of these costs total over $15 billion 
per year and the costs to other Federal health programs are nearly $5 
billion.
  The Columbia University Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse has 
estimated that tobacco-related illnesses 
[[Page S4379]]  will cost the Medicare program $800 billion over the 
next 20 years. At
 that rate, Medicare will go bankrupt.

  It is unconscionable that the tobacco industry has profited while the 
taxpayer has been left with the devastating and widespread costs 
associate with tobacco use.
  The legislation introduced by Senator Lautenberg would hold 
manufacturers accountable for the damage they do. Manufacturers of 
tobacco products would pay for the cost of tobacco-related illness 
incurred by Government through the Medicaid, Medicare, and other health 
programs.
  I am also pleased that Senator Bradley is introducing legislation to 
further the effort to decrease cigarette smoking. An increase in the 
tobacco tax is one of the most effective methods for significantly 
reducing tobacco use among children and adults. We know that for every 
10 percent increase in the price of tobacco products, there will be 
approximately a 4-percent decrease in tobacco consumption, and possibly 
even greater decrease in tobacco use among children.
  Mr. President, we must take every possible opportunity to convince 
people to stop smoking and prevent children from ever taking up the 
habit. As former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated:

       Smoking is associated with more death and illness than 
     drugs, alcohol, automobile accidents, and AIDS combined.

  U.S. Public Health Service figures tell us that over 430,000 
Americans will die from cigarette smoking this year. That is more than 
the number of Americans who died in all of World War II. Over 1,000 
Americans will die today from smoking. That is more than the equivalent 
of two fully loaded jumbo jets crashing with no survivors--every day.
  The medical data on the health effects of smoking are well 
established. Since 1964, when the first Surgeon General's ``Report on 
Smoking and Health'' was issued, some 50,000 scientific studies on the 
relationship between smoking and disease have been conducted. Smoking 
has been shown to be a major case of heart disease, chronic bronchitis, 
and emphysema; cancers of the lung, larynx, mouth, esophagus, pancreas, 
and bladder; pneumonia and stomach cancers.
  Mr. President, as we look for way to tackle the budget deficit we 
should not be cutting initiatives that help people and investment in 
our future. Instead we should close the corporate tax loopholes. And 
let's start by eliminating special breaks that help big tobacco 
corporations and hurt our kids.
  Passage of the Harkin, Lautenberg, and Bradley bills would be a 
triple play for our economy and our Nation's health.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 596

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

     SECTION 1. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS FOR ADVERTISING AND 
                   PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES RELATING TO TOBACCO 
                   PRODUCT USE.

       (a) In General.--Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     items not deductible) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 2801. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR TOBACCO 
                   ADVERTISING AND PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES.

       No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for 
     expenses relating to advertising or promoting cigars, 
     cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, or any similar 
     tobacco product. For purposes of this section, any term used 
     in this section which is also used in section 5702 shall have 
     the same meaning given such term by section 5702.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     part IX is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 280H the following new item:

``Sec. 280I. Disallowance of deduction for tobacco advertising and 
              promotion expenses.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1995.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Harkin, 
to introduce legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to forbid tobacco companies to deduct their advertising and 
promotional expenses when calculating their taxes.
  I have already discussed the huge toll--in both economical and human 
terms--which tobacco wreaks on this country. And I have already 
introduced a bill increasing the tax on all tobacco products by a 
factor of five. Mr. President, the Harkin-Bradley bill complements my 
earlier bill by ensuring that Federal Government acts consistently when 
it comes to tobacco.
  Why do I say the Government acts inconsistently with regard to 
tobacco? Because on the one hand, it allows tobacco companies to deduct 
their advertising and promotional costs on their taxes. These tax 
exemptions are the equivalent of direct Government payments. In terms 
of lost revenues to the Federal Treasury, they are no different from 
cash payments to AFDC recipients. And we're not talking a small amount 
of money--in 1992, these deductions were worth approximately $1.7 
billion a year to tobacco companies.
  On the other hand, the Government spends millions and millions of 
dollars to try to offset the harmful effects caused by tobacco use. We 
are giving more than $1.7 billion to the National Cancer Institute for 
research this year alone; this includes $114 million specifically for 
lung cancer. We require warning labels to be placed on cigarette 
packages to inform our citizens of the direct links between tobacco use 
and respiratory and lung diseases and possible birth defects. We 
provide millions of dollars for public health campaigns to warn people 
of the danger of tobacco, and to help them to quit.
  These are directly contradictory policies. First, we give the tobacco 
companies a tremendous tax incentive--a Government handout--essentially 
encouraging them to advertise and promote tobacco products. Then, we 
turn around and spend a billion or two trying to unravel the harm that 
we have helped to cause, to reduce the health devastation we have 
contributed to, by funding research on tobacco use and to fund 
campaigns to discourage and end its use.
  And think about those advertising and promotional campaigns which we 
are helping to finance. Many of them are targeted at our youth, who 
often may ignore well-intended and wise warnings about mortality, and 
instead obey the behavior of their own peer groups who believe that 
smoking is cool. Approximately 90
 percent of all smokers begin in their teens or younger. The tobacco 
companies know this and specifically target younger age groups in their 
advertising. And the Federal Government helps to pay the bill for them 
to do so.

  Mr. President, virtually all of the health care bills which were 
considered last session placed great emphasis on prevention. We know we 
can reduce health care costs if we encourage our citizens to avoid 
unhealthy choices, and to exercise regularly, to eat right, and design 
our health care system to focus on preventive care and not wait until 
someone is sick to treat them. Yet cigarette smoking is the single most 
preventable cause of death in the United States. This bill takes action 
now to put meaning into all the rhetoric about prevention. And at the 
same time, it will save the Federal Government an estimated $1.7 
billion a year in foregone tax expenditures, once it is fully 
implemented.
  Mr. President, this bill is health care reform that is right on 
target. It doesn't control prices, limit choices, or require any new 
Government intervention in health care. It addresses only those who are 
directly responsible for the largest preventable cause of death in the 
United States--the tobacco companies themselves.
  Mr. President, the Government should speak with one voice on this 
problem, and that voice should unequivocally say: ``Tobacco use will 
harm you.'' We will not subsidize the seller; we will not underwrite 
the smoker; we will support efforts to stop; and we will dedicate our 
resources to preventing Americans from ever starting. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in ensuring that we speak with one voice by 
supporting this bill.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 597. A bill to insure the long-term viability of the Medicare, 
Medicaid, and other Federal health programs by 
[[Page S4380]]  establishing a dedicated trust fund to reimburse the 
Government for the health care costs of individuals with diseases 
attributable to the use of tobacco products; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                     medicare/medicaid solvency act

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Medicare/Medicaid Solvency Act of 1995. This legislation will require 
the tobacco industry to reimburse the Federal Government for Medicare, 
Medicaid, and other Federal health care program costs for diseases 
attributable to tobacco products.
  Deliberations on the budget will soon begin and it looks like the 
Congress is serious about undertaking real, meaningful, and significant 
deficit reduction. My bill will do just that.
  Any serious attempt at deficit reduction must consider health care, 
particularly the Medicare, Medicaid, and the other Federal health care 
programs. Federal expenditures for these programs have skyrocketed in 
recent years and current HCFA projections indicate that the Medicare 
trust fund, which pays for Medicare part A costs, will become insolvent 
shortly after the turn of the century. Medicare part B, Medicaid, and 
other Federal health programs have no dedicated trust fund and 
contribute with increasing severity each year to the deficit spending 
about which we here in Congress complain so vehemently. It is now clear 
to everyone that changes in our Federal health care programs are 
inevitable if we wish to control and reduce the deficit.
  My Republican colleagues have proposed to cut Medicare and Medicaid 
by $255-$275 billion over the next 5 years. As much as I admire the 
Republicans' commitment to reducing Government waste and inefficiency, 
I do not believe we should seek to reduce the deficit by cutting health 
care for our most vulnerable citizens: seniors, children, and the 
disabled.
  And so I now proposed a better idea. The Centers for Disease Control 
tell us that Federal health care expenditures for diseases attributable 
to tobacco products are currently about $20 billion per year. While 
tobacco companies receive approximately $100 billion in annual revenues 
and earn huge profits from the sale of their deadly products, taxpayers 
are forced to pay the health care bills for the diseases those products 
cause. This is outrageous and is exactly backwards from what logic and 
justice tell us it ought to be. We need to turn this system on its 
head. We should be sending the Federal health care bills for tobacco-
related diseases to the tobacco companies rather than to the taxpayers.
  It is time to get serious about reducing the deficit. And the right 
way to reduce the deficit is not to reduce health care programs for 
people in need; rather it is to insist that the tobacco industry accept 
financial responsibility for the problems it knowingly causes. My bill 
does this.
  My message to the Republican leadership is simple: The tobacco 
industry must be a part of any deficit reduction package. Much has been 
said in this Chamber about the need to reduce the Federal deficit, and 
the need for individuals to take responsibility for their actions. Now 
it is time for the tobacco industry to accept responsibility for its 
actions. No member of this body who wishes to remain credible on 
deficit reduction can continue to ignore the extraordinary impact of 
this one industry on Government spending. There is no choice: either we 
vote to make the tobacco industry part of the solution to the deficit 
problem, or we abandon any pretense of being serious on this issue.
  My bill will reduce the deficit by $100 billion over 5 years. That is 
approximately $1,000 for every taxpayer in the country. It does this by 
directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to annually 
determine the amount of Federal health care expenditures for diseases 
attributable to tobacco products and then authorizes the Secretary of 
the Treasury to bill each tobacco company for its share of those 
expenditures, based on each company's share of the market for tobacco 
products. My bill does not penalize smokers nor does it restrict 
smoking in any way. It simply demands that those tobacco companies 
whose products are the direct and immediate cause of many billions of 
dollars of Federal health care costs pay their fair share of those 
costs.
  The real question is: Who will pay for the Federal health care costs 
for diseases attributable to tobacco products? Will it be the American 
taxpayers who are drowning in our national debt, or will it be the 
tobacco companies who are swimming in profits? With this legislation, I 
choose to side with the taxpayers and I hope my Senate colleagues will 
do so as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this bill, 
a fact sheet, and a letter of support from the Coalition or Smoking or 
Health printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 597

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare/Medicaid Solvency 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) illnesses and diseases that result from the use of 
     tobacco products cost Federal Government health care programs 
     billions of dollars, including $10,200,000,000 in the 
     medicare program, $5,100,000,000 in the medicaid program, and 
     $4,700,000,000 in other Federal health programs in fiscal 
     year 1993;
       (2) in April 1994, the trustees of the medicare trust funds 
     concluded that such funds may be insolvent in 2001;
       (3) such insolvency would severely affect the ability of 
     the medicare trust funds to continue to protect the health of 
     America's senior citizens; and
       (4) the medicare population has a significantly higher risk 
     of contracting illnesses and diseases that result from the 
     use of tobacco products than younger age groups.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to insure the 
     long-term viability of the medicare, medicaid, and other 
     federal health programs by establishing a dedicated trust 
     fund to reimburse the government for the health care costs of 
     individuals with diseases attributable to the use of tobacco 
     products.

     SEC. 3. TOBACCO PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS CONTRIBUTION TO HEALTH 
                   CARE COST REIMBURSEMENT TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:
``Subtitle K--Tobacco Product Manufacturers Contribution to Health Care 
                     Cost Reimbursement Trust Fund.
``Chapter 100. Tobacco Product Manufacturers Contribution to Health 
              Care Cost Reimbursement Trust Fund.
  ``CHAPTER 100--TOBACCO PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS CONTRIBUTION TO HEALTH 
                  CARE COST REIMBURSEMENT TRUST FUND.
``Sec. 9801. Establishment of Tobacco Product Health Care Cost 
              Reimbursement Trust Fund.
``Sec. 9802. Contributions to Trust Fund.
     ``SEC. 9801. ESTABLISHMENT OF TOBACCO PRODUCT HEALTH CARE 
                   COST REIMBURSEMENT TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     `Tobacco Product Health Care Cost Reimbursement Trust Fund' 
     (hereafter referred to in this chapter as the `Trust Fund'), 
     consisting of such amounts as may be appropriated or 
     transferred to the Trust Fund as provided in this section or 
     section 9602(b).
       ``(b) Transfers to Trust Fund.--The Secretary shall 
     transfer to the Trust Fund an amount equivalent to 
     contributions received in the Treasury under section 9802.
       ``(c) Distribution of Amounts in Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amounts in the Trust Fund shall be 
     available in each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 
     1997), as provided by appropriation Acts, to the Secretary--
       ``(A) to distribute to each particular Secretary 
     responsible for the expenditure of Federal funds for that 
     fiscal year under title XVIII or XIX of the Social Security 
     Act or any other Federal program for the payment of health 
     care costs of individuals with diseases attributable to the 
     use of tobacco products, and
       ``(B) to pay all expenses of administration incurred by the 
     Department of the Treasury in administering this chapter and 
     the Trust Fund.
       ``(2) Determination of distribution.--Each particular 
     Secretary described in paragraph (1)(A) shall submit to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury such documentation as the Secretary 
     requires to determine the appropriate distribution under 
     paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(3) Use of distributions.--In any case in which an 
     expenditure of Federal funds described in paragraph (1)(A) 
     was made from a trust fund, the distribution under paragraph 
     (1)(A) reimbursing such expenditure shall be made to such 
     trust fund.
       ``(4) State medicaid expenditures.--For purposes of this 
     section, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     include in the Secretary's submission under paragraph (2) the 
     expenditure of State funds under State plans under title XIX 
     of the Social Security Act for the payment of health care 
     [[Page S4381]] costs of individuals with diseases 
     attributable to the use of tobacco products, and to the 
     extent the distribution to the Secretary under paragraph 
     (1)(A) is attributable to such expenditure, shall reimburse 
     the various States for such expenditures.
       ``(d) Administrative Rules.--For purposes of this section, 
     the rules of subchapter B of chapter 98 shall apply.
       ``(e) Tobacco Products.--For purposes of this chapter, the 
     term `tobacco products' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 5702(c).
     ``SEC. 9802. CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Annual Premiums.--Each manufacturer of tobacco 
     products shall pay to the Trust Fund, an annual contribution 
     equal to the product of the amount determined under 
     subsection (b) for each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal 
     year 1997) and the manufacturer's market share percentage 
     determined under subsection (c) for the calendar year 
     preceding such fiscal year.
       ``(b) Determination of Funding Levels.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than the date the President is 
     required to submit the budget of the United States for a 
     fiscal year to Congress, the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, after consultation with the 
     Directors of the National Institutes of Health, the National 
     Cancer Institute, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
     Institute, shall make an estimate of--
       ``(A) the amount of Federal expenditures for that fiscal 
     year under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act 
     and other Federal programs, and
       ``(B) the amount of State expenditures for that fiscal year 
     under State plans under title XIX of the Social Security Act,

     for payment of health care costs of individuals with diseases 
     attributable to the use of tobacco products.
       ``(2) Disclosure of estimate methodology.--The Director of 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shall publish 
     in the Federal Register all relevant documentation considered 
     and the methodology used in making the estimate described in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Report in budget.--The President shall include the 
     estimate described in paragraph (1) in the budget for the 
     fiscal year.
       ``(c) Market Share Percentage.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than July 1, the Secretary 
     shall determine and publish the market share percentage for 
     the preceding calendar year for each manufacturer of tobacco 
     products by determining such manufacturer's percentage share 
     of the total amount of tobacco products sold in the United 
     States during such calendar year.
       ``(2) Information.--Not later than April 1, each 
     manufacturer of tobacco products shall furnish to the 
     Secretary such information as the Secretary may require to 
     determine any market share percentage under this subsection 
     for the preceding calendar year.
       ``(d) Payment of Contributions.--The annual contribution 
     under subsection (a) for any fiscal year shall be payable in 
     12 monthly installments, due on the twenty-fifth day of each 
     calendar month in the fiscal year.
       ``(e) Enforcement.--For penalties and other general and 
     administrative provisions applicable to this section, see 
     subtitle F.
       ``(f) Manufacturer of Tobacco Products.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `manufacturer of tobacco products' has 
     the meaning given such term by section 5702(d).''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                                                    ____

                Medicare/Medicaid Solvency Act--Summary

       Federal Health Care Costs Associated with Tobacco Use:
       Medicare, $10.2 billion; Medicaid, $5.1 billion; Other 
     Fed., $4.7 billion.
       Total: $20.0 billion (Per Year--1993 CDC Figures).


                     Medicare/Medicaid Solvency Act

       A special HHS panel will determine the total amount of 
     Federal funds spent on tobacco related illnesses each year.
       The Secretary of Treasury shall collect a special annual 
     levy from each tobacco company, based on market share, to 
     recoup all the Federal funds spent on treating tobacco 
     related illnesses.
       Any State Medicaid funds recouped under this bill would be 
     returned to state treasuries.
       This legislation is similar to the Black Lung Trust Fund 
     which collects a levy on mined coal to pay for the health 
     care costs associated with Black Lung Disease.
       This legislation will help cut the deficit by approximately 
     $100 billion over the next five years and will help ensure 
     the long-term viability of the Medicare trust fund, which is 
     likely to be insolvent by the year 2001.
                                                                    ____



                               Coalition on Smoking OR Health,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: We commend you for your leadership 
     in introducing your bill to assess the tobacco industry for 
     the health care costs it imposes on American taxpayers. We 
     agree with you that it is more appropriate for the tobacco 
     industry to pay these costs than innocent taxpayers.
       Your proposal would be one of the most important public 
     health steps this country has ever taken. It would conserve 
     taxpayer dollars, discourage hundreds of thousands of 
     teenagers from becoming addicted to tobacco and save about 
     two million lives over time.
       You have our full support. We look forward to working with 
     you and your staff.
           Sincerely,
     Scott D. Ballin,
                                Vice President for Public Affairs,
                                       American Heart Association.
     Fran Du Melle,
                                         Deputy Managing Director,
                                        American Lung Association.
     Michael F. Heron,
                       National Vice President for Public Affairs,
                                          American Cancer Society.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BRADLEY (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 598. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the excise taxes on tobacco products, and to use a portion of the 
resulting revenues to fund a trust fund for tobacco diversification, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


        tobacco consumption reduction and health improvement act

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that takes a bold step toward reducing the devastating health and 
financial effects of tobacco use in this country.
  Mr. President, in both 1991 and 1993, I rose before this Chamber to 
talk about the destructive effects of tobacco use and to introduce 
legislation that would begin to redress these effects. Since my 1993 
statement, almost 1 million more people have died from tobacco-related 
illnesses. The time to stop this travesty is now, and to do that I am 
introducing legislation that will raise the Federal excise tax on 
tobacco by a factor of five, which translates to an increase of $1.00 
per pack of cigarettes.
  Over 30 years after the 1964 Surgeon General's report sounded the 
health alarm for smoking, approximately one-quarter of the Nation's 
adults remain addicted to cigarettes. Smoking now kills an estimated 
419,000 Americans every year--more than alcohol, heroin, crack, 
automobile and airplane accidents, homicides, suicides, and AIDS 
combined. Furthermore, environmental tobacco smoke--smoke from other 
people's cigarettes--causes tens of thousands of additional deaths. 
This year, one out of every five Americans who dies will die from 
tobacco use.
  If these statistics were not staggering enough, each year a growing 
number of teenagers start smoking, even though selling cigarettes to 
minors is illegal. Virtually all new users of tobacco are teenagers or 
younger, and every 30 seconds a child in the United States smokes for 
the first time. The efforts that have been waged by public health 
officials against youth smoking have been dwarfed by the billions spent 
by the industry on advertising aimed at children and teenagers. The 
addiction of children to tobacco, and consequently the long-term 
effects, is a moral disgrace.
  A spokesman for the Tobacco Institute, a lobbying group for the 
tobacco industry, was quoted as saying with regard to smoking:

       This is a day and age when we ultimately have to recognize 
     that adults are going to indulge in the legal pleasures that 
     others don't approve of.

  My response to the industry is: This legal pleasure kills more than 
one out of three long-term users when used as intended. This legal 
pleasure has been determined to be a major cause of heart disease, lung 
cancer, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, low-birthweight babies, strokes, 
and a variety of other diseases.
 This legal pleasure is as addictive as cocaine or heroin. They are 
right that I don't approve of the effects of this legal pleasure, and 
for good reason.

  Furthermore, this legal pleasure contributes substantially to health 
care costs every year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, health care expenditures caused directly by smoking totaled 
$50 billion in 1993, and $22 billion of those costs were paid by 
Government funds. According to a former Secretary of the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, smoking is the largest single drain on 
the Medicare trust fund.
  One of the most effective things we can do to control health care 
costs is to end smoking. I view tobacco taxes as compensation for a 
portion of the health care costs burden we are forced to bear, thanks 
to smoking. It is more than fair to ask smokers to share some of the 
costs which they help to create.
  [[Page S4382]] Some people may think that the tobacco tax has already 
been raised substantially in recent years, and therefore that it is 
unfair to raise it again. This is a misconception. Despite the fact 
that the average price of a pack of cigarettes has risen by more than 
$1.10 since 1982, only 8 cents of this increase is due to a rise in the 
Federal excise tax. And even the dollar-per-pack increase which I am 
proposing will generate only about $12 billion a year in additional 
income--far less than the $50 billion in health care costs caused 
directly by tobacco in 1 year.
  But this bill has an even more important goal than recovering health 
care expenditures. It will help decrease tobacco consumption 
significantly. Conservative estimates predict that a 10 percent 
increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce overall smoking by 
about 4 percent. And for kids, who are more price sensitive than 
adults, the impact is even greater--every 10-percent increase in 
cigarette prices decreases demand among children and teenager by as 
much as 14 percent.
  Mr. President, despite the many advantages of this legislation, I am 
not blind to the fact that there are those whom it will impact 
negatively--particularly, tobacco farmers. By no means do I think that 
the potential losses to these farmers are an adequate justification for 
making no efforts to reduce tobacco consumption. But because I realize 
the impact of an increased excise tax on these farmers, my bill puts 3 
percent of all revenues it generates into a special trust fund to be 
used to help tobacco framers substitute new crops in place of tobacco.
  Mr. President, these days everyone is looking for a way to reduce 
Government spending on health care. Almost all of the actions under 
consideration will be painful. In contrast, increasing the tobacco tax 
is one of the wisest and most beneficial ways of addressing this 
problem. It will save billions of dollars in health care costs, not 
only for the Federal Government but for private insurers and citizens 
across the country. It will save countless lives. It will decrease 
unnecessary suffering. It will discourage millions of children and 
teenagers from ever becoming addicted to tobacco. And poll after poll 
has found that public support is high for a significant hike in the 
tobacco tax--and this support is consistent across people from all 
geographic and economic backgrounds.
  Mr. President, this bill is good health policy. It is good economic 
policy. And it is key to helping our children and teenagers achieve a 
tobacco-free future. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a bill summary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 598
       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 ``Tobacco Consumption 
     Reduction and Health Improvement Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN TAXES ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Cigars.--Subsection (a) of section 5701 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rate of tax on cigars) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``$1.125 cents per thousand (93.75 cents 
     per thousand on cigars removed during 1991 and 1992)'' in 
     paragraph (1) and inserting ``$5.8125 per thousand''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(2) Large cigars.--On cigars weighing more than 3 pounds 
     per thousand, a tax equal to 65.875 percent of the price for 
     which sold but not more than $155 per thousand.''
       (2) Cigarettes.--Subsection (b) of section 5701 of such 
     Code (relating to rate of tax on cigarettes) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``$12 per thousand ($10 per thousand on 
     cigarettes removed during 1991 and 1992)'' in paragraph (1) 
     and inserting ``$62 per thousand''; and
       (B) by striking ``$25.20 per thousand ($21 per thousand on 
     cigarettes removed during 1991 and 1992)'' in paragraph (2) 
     and inserting ``$130.20 per thousand''.
       (3) Cigarette papers.--Subsection (c) of section 5701 of 
     such Code (relating to rate of tax on cigarette papers) is 
     amended by striking ``0.75 cent (0.625 cent on cigarette 
     papers removed during 1991 or 1992)'' and inserting ``3.875 
     cents''.
       (4) Cigarette tubes.--Subsection (d) of section 5701 of 
     such Code (relating to rate of tax on cigarette tubes) is 
     amended by striking ``1.5 cents (1.25 cents on cigarette 
     tubes removed during 1991 or 1992)'' and inserting ``7.75 
     cents''.
       (5) Snuff.--Paragraph (1) of section 5701(e) of such Code 
     (relating to rate of tax on smokeless tobacco) is amended by 
     striking ``36 cents (30 cents on snuff removed during 1991 or 
     1992)'' and inserting ``$1.86''.
       (6) Chewing tobacco.--Paragraph (2) of section 5701(e) of 
     such Code is amended by striking ``12 cents (10 cents on 
     chewing tobacco removed during 1991 or 1992)'' and inserting 
     ``62 cents''.
       (7) Pipe tobacco.--Subsection (f) of section 5701 of such 
     Code (relating to rate of tax on pipe tobacco) is amended by 
     striking ``67.5 cents (56.25 cents on chewing tobacco removed 
     during 1991 or 1992)'' and inserting ``$3.4875''.
       (8) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to cigars, cigarettes, cigarette 
     paper, cigarette tubes, snuff, chewing tobacco, and pipe 
     tobacco removed after December 31, 1995.
       (b) Imposition of Excise Tax on Manufacture or Importation 
     of Roll-Your-Own Tobacco.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5701 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to rate of tax) is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by inserting after 
     subsection (f) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Roll-Your-Own Tobacco.--On roll-your-own tobacco, 
     manufactured in or imported into the United States, there 
     shall be imposed a tax of $1.86 per pound (and a 
     proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of 
     a pound).''
       (2) Roll-your-own tobacco.--Section 5702 of such Code 
     (relating to definitions) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(p) Roll-Your-Own Tobacco.--The term `roll-your-own 
     tobacco' means any tobacco which, because of its appearance, 
     type, packaging, or labeling, is suitable for use and likely 
     to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco for 
     making cigarettes.''
       (3) Technical amendments.--
       (A) Subsection (c) of section 5702 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``and pipe tobacco'' and inserting ``pipe 
     tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco''.
       (B) Subsection (d) of section 5702 of such Code is 
     amended--
       (i) in the material preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``or pipe tobacco'' and inserting ``pipe tobacco, or roll-
     your-own tobacco'', and
       (ii) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(1) a person who produces cigars, cigarettes, smokeless 
     tobacco, pipe tobacco, or roll-your-own tobacco solely for 
     the person's own personal consumption or use, and''.
       (C) The chapter heading for chapter 52 of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:

    ``CHAPTER 52--TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND CIGARETTE PAPERS AND TUBES''.

       (D) The table of chapters for subtitle E of such Code is 
     amended by striking the item relating to chapter 52 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``Chapter 52. Tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes.''

       (4) Effective date.--
       (A) In general.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to roll-your-own tobacco removed (as defined in 
     section 5702(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
     added by this subsection) after December 31, 1995.
       (B) Transitional rule.--Any person who--
       (i) on the date of the enactment of this Act is engaged in 
     business as a manufacturer of roll-your-own tobacco or as an 
     importer of tobacco products or cigarette papers and tubes, 
     and
       (ii) before January 1, 1996, submits an application under 
     subchapter B of chapter 52 of such Code to engage in such 
     business,

     may, notwithstanding such subchapter B, continue to engage in 
     such business pending final action on such application. 
     Pending such final action, all provisions of such chapter 52 
     shall apply to such applicant in the same manner and to the 
     same extent as if such applicant were a holder of a permit 
     under such chapter 52 to engage in such business.
       (c) Floor Stocks.--
       (1) Imposition of tax.--On cigars, cigarettes, cigarette 
     paper, cigarette tubes, snuff, chewing tobacco, and pipe 
     tobacco manufactured in or imported into the United States 
     which is removed before January 1, 1996, and held on such 
     date for sale by any person, there shall be imposed the 
     following taxes:
       (A) Small cigars.--On cigars, weighing not more than 3 
     pounds per thousand, $4.6875 per thousand.
       (B) Large cigars.--On cigars, weighing more than 3 pounds 
     per thousand, a tax equal to 53.125 percent of the price for 
     which sold, but not more than $125 per thousand.
       (C) Small cigarettes.--On cigarettes, weighing not more 
     than 3 pounds per thousand, $50 per thousand.
       (D) Large cigarettes.--On cigarettes, weighing more than 3 
     pounds per thousand, $105 per thousand; except that, if more 
     than 6\1/2\ inches in length, they shall be taxable at the 
     rate prescribed for cigarettes weighing not more than 3 
     pounds per thousand, counting each 2\3/4\ inches, or fraction 
     thereof, of the length of each as one cigarette.
     [[Page S4383]]   (E) Cigarette papers.--On cigarette papers, 
     3.125 cents for each 50 papers or fractional part thereof; 
     except that, if cigarette papers measure more than 6\1/2\ 
     inches in length, they shall be taxable at the rate 
     prescribed, counting each 2\3/4\ inches, or fraction thereof, 
     of the length of each as one cigarette paper.
       (F) Cigarette tubes.--On cigarette tubes, 6.25 cents for 
     each 50 tubes or fractional part thereof; except that, if 
     cigarette tubes measure more than 6\1/2\ inches in length, 
     they shall be taxable at the rate prescribed, counting each 
     2\3/4\ inches, or fraction thereof, of the length of each as 
     one cigarette tube.
       (G) Snuff.--On snuff, $1.50 per pound and a proportionate 
     tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a pound.
       (H) Chewing tobacco.--On chewing tobacco, 50 cents per 
     pound and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all 
     fractional parts of a pound.
       (I) Pipe tobacco.--On pipe tobacco, $2.8125 per pound and a 
     proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of 
     a pound.
       (2) Liability for tax and method of payment.--
       (A) Liability for tax.--A person holding cigars, 
     cigarettes, cigarette paper, cigarette tubes, snuff, chewing 
     tobacco, and pipe tobacco on January 1, 1996, to which any 
     tax imposed by paragraph (1) applies shall be liable for such 
     tax.
       (B) Method of payment.--The tax imposed by paragraph (1) 
     shall be treated as a tax imposed under section 5701 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and shall be due and payable on 
     February 15, 1996, in the same manner as the tax imposed 
     under such section is payable with respect to cigars, 
     cigarettes, cigarette paper, cigarette tubes, snuff, chewing 
     tobacco, and pipe tobacco removed on January 1, 1996.
       (3) Cigars, cigarettes, cigarette paper, cigarette tubes, 
     snuff, chewing tobacco, and pipe tobacco.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the terms ``cigar'', ``cigarette'', 
     ``cigarette paper'', ``cigarette tubes'', ``snuff'', 
     ``chewing tobacco'', and ``pipe tobacco'' shall have the 
     meaning given to such terms by subsections (a), (b), (e), and 
     (g), paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (n), and subsection 
     (o) of section 5702 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     respectively.
       (4) Exception for retail stocks.--The taxes imposed by 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to cigars, cigarettes, 
     cigarette paper, cigarette tubes, snuff, chewing tobacco, and 
     pipe tobacco in retail stocks held on January 1, 1996, at the 
     place where intended to be sold at retail.
       (5) Foreign trade zones.--Notwithstanding the Act of June 
     18, 1934 (19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.) or any other provision of 
     law--
       (A) cigars, cigarettes, cigarette paper, cigarette tubes, 
     snuff, chewing tobacco, and pipe tobacco--
       (i) on which taxes imposed by Federal law are determined, 
     or customs duties are liquidated, by a customs officer 
     pursuant to a request made under the first proviso of section 
     3(a) of the Act of June 18, 1934 (19 U.S.C. 81c(a)) before 
     January 1, 1996, and
       (ii) which are entered into the customs territory of the 
     United States on or after January 1, 1996, from a foreign 
     trade zone, and
       (B) cigars, cigarettes, cigarette paper, cigarette tubes, 
     snuff, chewing tobacco, and pipe tobacco which--
       (i) are placed under the supervision of a customs officer 
     pursuant to the provisions of the second proviso of section 
     3(a) of the Act of June 18, 1934 (19 U.S.C. 81c(a)) before 
     January 1, 1996, and
       (ii) are entered into the customs territory of the United 
     States on or after January 1, 1996, from a foreign trade 
     zone,

     shall be subject to the tax imposed by paragraph (1) and such 
     cigars, cigarettes, cigarette paper, cigarette tubes, snuff, 
     chewing tobacco, and pipe tobacco shall, for purposes of 
     paragraph (1), be treated as being held on January 1, 1996, 
     for sale.
       (d) Establishment of Trust Fund.--
       (1) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 98 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to trust fund code) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 9512. TOBACCO CONVERSION TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     `Tobacco Conversion Trust Fund' (hereafter referred to in 
     this section as the `Trust Fund'), consisting of such amounts 
     as may be appropriated or credited to the Trust Fund as 
     provided in this section or section 9602(b).
       ``(b) Transfers to Trust Fund.--The Secretary shall 
     transfer to the Trust Fund an amount equivalent to 3 percent 
     of the net increase in revenues received in the Treasury 
     attributable to the amendments made to section 5701 by 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 2 and the provisions 
     contained in section 2(c) of the Tobacco Consumption 
     Reduction and Health Improvement Act of 1995, as estimated by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(c) Distribution of Amounts in Trust Fund.--Amounts in 
     the Trust Fund shall be available to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, as provided by appropriation Acts, for making 
     expenditures for purposes of--
       ``(1) providing assistance to farmers in converting from 
     tobacco to other crops and improving the access of such 
     farmers to markets for other crops, and
       ``(2) providing grants or loans to communities, and persons 
     involved in the production or manufacture of tobacco or 
     tobacco products, to support economic diversification plans 
     that provide economic alternatives to tobacco to such 
     communities and persons.

     The assistance referred to in paragraph (1) may include 
     government purchase of tobacco allotments for purposes of 
     retiring such allotments from allotment holders and farmers 
     who choose to terminate their involvement in tobacco 
     production.''
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     subchapter A is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 9512. Tobacco Conversion Trust Fund.''

                                                                    ____
   Tobacco Consumption Reduction and Health Improvement Act of 1995--
                                Summary

       This bill provides for an increase of the Federal excise 
     tax on tobacco products. It raises the excise tax five-fold 
     on cigarettes, from 24 cents to $1.24 per pack. The excise 
     tax for all other tobacco products will also be increased 
     five-fold. This bill will generate approximately $12 billion 
     in additional federal revenues each year.
       The reasons for this increase are clear. First, it allows 
     us to use the most potent weapon we have at our disposal to 
     discourage smoking--raising the price of tobacco. This will 
     allow us to specifically direct our attention to a vulnerable 
     and price sensitive group--children and teenagers. It is also 
     smart tax policy--it taxes what we want to discourage so we 
     can cut taxes on the things we want to encourage. Second, the 
     Centers for Disease Control and the Office of Technology 
     Assessment have estimated the cost to society of cigarette 
     smoking at over $100 billion annually; $22 billion of these 
     costs were paid by government funds. It is more than fair to 
     ask smokers to shoulder some of these costs.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 599. A bill to eliminate certain welfare with respect to fugitive 
felons and probation and parole violators, and to facilitate sharing of 
information with law enforcement officers, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.


                   fugitive felons and welfare reform

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, like most of my colleagues in the 
Senate, I have followed with interest the activity in the House 
regarding welfare reform. It is with a unique perspective that I have 
viewed the House action having been at the center of the House's 
welfare reform debate last year and having been deeply involved in the 
direction and decision making of the House Republican platform.
  During the 103d Congress, I served as the ranking Republican member 
on the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee. Preceding me in 
that capacity is quite a list of dedicated ranking members who all have 
and continue to make a very significant contribution to the welfare 
reform discussions--Senator Hank Brown, Gov. Carroll Campbell, and the 
current chairman of that subcommittee, Congressman Clay Shaw. As the 
Senate now prepares for its own activity on welfare reform, I hope to 
continue to be equally active on this side in setting that direction.
  It is hard to undertake any discussion on welfare reform without 
realizing the multitude of issues, programs, problems, and complexities 
that are involved. And while my activity in the House covered many 
aspects of welfare and welfare-related programs, one such issue that I 
wanted to discuss today pertains to fugitive felons receiving welfare 
benefits.
  Under current law, barriers exist to information sharing between law 
enforcement officials and social service agencies. While few States 
have defined criteria where the exchange of information can occur 
between police and social service offices, most States have not. And 
with the reality of fugitives receiving public assistance, it makes 
sense to provide police access to welfare records that indicate the 
whereabouts of wanted individuals, without violating the privacy 
language and rights of welfare beneficiaries.
  In the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation (H.R. 4657) which 
establishes criteria for information sharing between law enforcement 
officials and social service agencies, allows cross reference checks 
between the Immigration and Naturalization Service and law enforcement 
with regard to illegal immigration, and sets a Federal definition of 
temporarily absent in instances where children of beneficiaries are 
away from the home for extended periods of time.
  The information and record referencing under the bill is limited to 
individuals for whom warrants are outstanding. The bill permits access 
by law enforcement to information when a warrant is produced, and it is 
found that 
[[Page S4384]] the individual is receiving benefits. Someone who is not 
a fugitive felon would remain fully protected from such inquiries under 
the Welfare Privacy Act.
  Is there a need for such information sharing? I'd like to submit for 
the Record a copy of a news article from Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on 
July 29, 1994. The article describes a situation in which an individual 
wanted for an 1984 slaying in Pittsburgh, had been on the run and 
receiving Federal welfare benefits under his real name. Likewise, a 
situation last year in Cleveland, OH, highlighted the difficulties that 
exist in tracking fugitives and trying to interface with social service 
agencies. In that instance, Cuyahoga County officials were denied 
access to records as they attempted to cross reference outstanding 
fugitive warrants with social service records.
  It is absurd that taxpayers are subsidizing a fugitive's freedom when 
checking a recipient's address could lead to their apprehension. 
Currently, the National Crime Information Center lists 397,000 
outstanding fugitive warrants nationwide--warrants being defined as 
``felonies'' or ``high misdemeanors'' in cases where States agree to 
extradition. Several police groups have projected that as many as 75 
percent of those fugitives are receiving public assistance. 
Additionally, as I have discovered with Pennsylvania, the extradition 
stipulation for warrants in the NCIC data bank actually shields the 
number of outstanding warrants in a given State. You too may find that 
your State figures are significant.
  Last week, I met with the Philadelphia Fugitive Task Force to discuss 
the practical effects of the legislation. In confronting their 50,000 
outstanding fugitive warrants, they feel strongly that the bill 
provides them yet another tool in their investigative efforts. 
Likewise, the measure has received similar comment from the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, 
the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of 
America.
  While the fugitive felon situation generally involves the parent or 
an adult, the bill also addresses ambiguity in the law with regard to 
children. Under current law, a mother can continue to receive AFDC 
payment for a child even if that child is temporarily absent from the 
home. Depending on their definition, States have the authority to end 
AFDC payments if the child is not going to physically be in the home 
for an extended period of time. Again, like the fugitive felon issue, 
Federal and State law remains undefined in most cases for temporarily 
absent. My bill would federally define temporarily absent for those 
instances where juveniles are away from the home as a result of a court 
decision or criminal activity.
  Mr. President, while this legislation today may serve as my first 
official measure for the 104th Congress in the area of welfare reform, 
it is by no means the sole measure I will be introducing to the Senate. 
In the weeks ahead, I plan on introducing proposals covering child 
support enforcement, supplemental security income, and a more 
comprehensive proposal speaking to welfare reform in its entirety. 
Additionally, I plan on being very active within the Agriculture 
Committee in the area of nutrition programs and examining the reform 
options available to us, including a review of the block grant concept.
  I welcome and encourage my colleagues' interest in this and other 
initiatives.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and a 
copy of the article I referenced earlier be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 599
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF WELFARE BENEFITS WITH RESPECT TO 
                   FUGITIVE FELONS AND PROBATION AND PAROLE 
                   VIOLATORS.

       (a) Medicaid Program.--
       (1) Ineligibility for medical assistance.--Section 1902(a) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (61);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (62) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (62) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(63) provide that no medical assistance shall be 
     available under the plan to any individual during any period 
     during which the individual--
       ``(A) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to 
     commit a crime) which, under the laws of the place from which 
     the recipient is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of New 
     Jersey, a high misdemeanor); or
       ``(B) is violating a condition of probation or parole 
     imposed under Federal or State law.''.
       (2) Exchange of information with law enforcement 
     agencies.--Section 1902(a)(7) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(7)) is amended by striking the semicolon and 
     inserting the following: ``, except that nothing in this 
     paragraph shall be construed to prevent the State agency from 
     furnishing a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer 
     with the current address, Social Security number and 
     photograph (if applicable) of a recipient at the officer's 
     request if the officer notifies the agency that--
       ``(A) the recipient is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or 
     custody or confinement after conviction, for a crime (or 
     attempt to commit a crime) which, under the laws of the place 
     from which the recipient is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the 
     case of New Jersey, a high misdemeanor), or is violating a 
     condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or 
     State law,
       ``(B) the location or apprehension of the recipient is 
     within the officer's official duties, and
       ``(C) the request is made in the proper exercise of the 
     officer's official duties;''.
       (b) AFDC Program.--
       (1) Ineligibility for aid.--Section 402(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (44);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (45) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (45) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(46) provide that aid shall not be payable under the 
     State plan with respect to any individual during any period 
     during which the individual is--
       ``(A) fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to 
     commit a crime) which, under the laws of the place from which 
     the individual is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of 
     New Jersey, a high misdemeanor); or
       ``(B) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed 
     under Federal or State law.''.
       (2) Exchange of information with law enforcement 
     agencies.--Section 402(a)(9) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(9)) is amended by striking ``State or local'' and all 
     that follows through ``official duties'' and inserting 
     ``Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, upon such 
     officer's request, with the current address, Social Security 
     number and photograph (if applicable) of any recipient if the 
     officer furnishes the agency with such recipient's name and 
     notifies the agency that such recipient is fleeing to avoid 
     prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, for 
     a crime (or attempt to commit a crime) which, under the laws 
     of the place from which the recipient is fleeing, is a felony 
     (or, in the case of New Jersey, a high misdemeanor), or is 
     violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under 
     Federal or State law, or has information that is necessary 
     for the officer to conduct the officer's official duties, 
     that the location or apprehension of such recipient is within 
     the officer's official duties''.
       (c) Food Stamp Program.--
       (1) Ineligibility for food stamps.--Section 6 of the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) No member of a household who is otherwise eligible to 
     participate in the food stamp program shall be eligible to 
     participate in the program as a member of that or any other 
     household during any period during which the individual is--
       ``(1) fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to 
     commit a crime) which, under the laws of the place from which 
     the individual is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of 
     New Jersey, a high misdemeanor); or
       ``(2) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed 
     under Federal or State law.''.
       (2) Exchange of information with law enforcement 
     officers.--Section 11(e)(8) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(8)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and (C)'' and inserting ``(C)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, and (D) notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the address, Social Security number and photograph (if 
     applicable) of a member of a household shall be made 
     available, on request, to a Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement officer if the officer furnishes the State agency 
     with the name of the member and notifies the agency that (i) 
     the member (I) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to 
     commit a crime) which, under the laws of the place from which 
     the individual is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of 
     New Jersey, a high misdemeanor), or is violating a condition 
     of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law, or 
     (II) has information that is necessary for the officer to 
     conduct the officer's official duties, (ii) the location or 
     apprehension of the member is within the official duties of 
     the officer, 
     [[Page S4385]]  and (iii) the request is made in the proper 
     exercise of the officer's official duties''.
       (d) SSI Program.--
       (1) Ineligibility for aid.--Section 1611(e) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) A person shall not be an eligible individual or 
     eligible spouse for purposes of this title with respect to 
     any month if, throughout the month, the person is--
       ``(A) fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to 
     commit a crime) which, under the laws of the place from which 
     the person is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of New 
     Jersey, a high misdemeanor); or
       ``(B) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed 
     under Federal or State law.''.
       (2) Exchange of information with law enforcement 
     agencies.--Section 1631(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(e)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating the paragraphs (6) and (7) inserted by 
     sections 206(d)(2) and 206(f)(1) of the Social Security 
     Independence and Programs Improvement Act of 1994 (Public Law 
     103-296; 108 Stat. 1514, 1515) as paragraphs (7) and (8), 
     respectively; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement officer, upon such officer's request, with the 
     current address, Social Security number and photograph (if 
     applicable) of any recipient of benefits under this title, if 
     the officer furnishes the agency with such recipient's name 
     and notifies the agency that--
       ``(A) such recipient--
       ``(i) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to 
     commit a crime) which, under the laws of the place from which 
     the person is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of New 
     Jersey, a high misdemeanor);
       ``(ii) is violating a condition of probation or parole 
     imposed under Federal or State law; or
       ``(iii) has information that is necessary for the officer 
     to conduct the officer's official duties;
       ``(B) the location or apprehension of such recipient is 
     within the officer's official duties; and
       ``(C) the request is made in the proper exercise of the 
     officer's official duties.''.
       (e) Housing Programs.--
       (1) Eligibility for assistance.--The United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 6(l)--
       (i) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by inserting immediately after paragraph (6) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(7) provide that it shall be cause for immediate 
     termination of the tenancy of a public housing tenant if such 
     tenant--
       ``(A) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to 
     commit a crime) which, under the laws of the place from which 
     the tenant is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of New 
     Jersey, a high misdemeanor); or
       ``(B) is violating a condition of probation or parole 
     imposed under Federal or State law.''; and
       (B) in section 8(d)(1)(B)--
       (i) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding after clause (iv) the following new clause:
       ``(v) it shall be cause for termination of the tenancy of a 
     tenant if such tenant--

       ``(I) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to 
     commit a crime) which, under the laws of the place from which 
     the tenant is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of New 
     Jersey, a high misdemeanor); or
       ``(II) is violating a condition of probation or parole 
     imposed under Federal or State law;''.

       (2) Provision of information to law enforcement agencies.--
     Title I of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 27. PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND 
                   OTHER AGENCIES.

       ``(a) Exchange of Information With Law Enforcement 
     Agencies.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
     public housing agency that enters into a contract for 
     assistance under section 6 or 8 of this Act with the 
     Secretary shall furnish to any Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement agency, upon request, the current address, Social 
     Security number and photograph (if applicable) of any 
     recipient of assistance under this Act if the law enforcement 
     agency--
       ``(1) furnishes the public housing agency with such 
     recipient's name; and
       ``(2) notifies such agency that--
       ``(A) such recipient--
       ``(i) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, for a crime (or attempt to 
     commit a crime) which, under the laws of the place from which 
     the tenant is fleeing, is a felony (or, in the case of New 
     Jersey, a high misdemeanor);
       ``(ii) is violating a condition of probation or parole 
     imposed under Federal or State law; or
       ``(iii) has information that is necessary for the officer 
     to conduct the officer's official duties;
       ``(B) the location or apprehension of such recipient is 
     within the official duties of the agency; and
       ``(C) the request is made in the proper exercise of the 
     officer's official duties.''.

     SEC. 2. NOTICE TO IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE OF 
                   ILLEGAL ALIENS.

       (a) Medicaid Program.--Section 1902(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (61);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (62) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (62) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(63) provide that the State agency shall, at least 4 
     times annually and upon request of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, furnish the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service with the name and address of, and 
     other identifying information on, any individual who the 
     agency knows is unlawfully in the United States.''.
       (b) AFDC Program.--Section 402(a)(9) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(9)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), and 
     (E) as clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``(9)'' and inserting ``(9)(A)'';
       (3) in clause (v) (as so redesignated), by striking ``(D)'' 
     and inserting ``(iv)'';
       (4) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon at the end; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) provide that, the State agency shall, at least 4 
     times annually and upon request of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, furnish the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service with the name and address of, and 
     other identifying information on, any individual who the 
     agency knows is unlawfully in the United States;''.
       (c) Food Stamp Program.--Section 11(e) of the Food Stamp 
     Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)), as amended by section 
     1(c)(2), is amended--
       (1) paragraph (8)--
       (A) by striking ``and (D)'' and inserting ``(D)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, and (E) such safeguards shall not prevent 
     compliance with paragraph (26)'';
       (2) in paragraph (24) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (25) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(26) that the State agency shall, at least 4 times 
     annually and upon request of the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, furnish the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service with the name and address of, and 
     other identifying information on, any individual who the 
     agency knows is unlawfully in the United States.''.
       (d) SSI Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1631(e) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1383(e)), as amended by section 1(d)(2) of this 
     Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(10) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Commissioner shall, at least 4 times annually and upon 
     request of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the `Service'), 
     furnish the Service with the name and address of, and other 
     identifying information on, any individual who the agency 
     knows is unlawfully in the United States, and shall ensure 
     that each agreement entered into under section 1616(a) with a 
     State provides that the State shall furnish such information 
     at such times with respect to any individual who the State 
     knows is unlawfully in the United States.''.
       (e) Housing Programs.--Section 27 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as added by section 1(e)(2) of this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Notice to Immigration and Naturalization Service of 
     Illegal Aliens.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary shall, at least 4 times annually and upon 
     request of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
     (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the `Service'), 
     furnish the Service with the name and address of, and other 
     identifying information on, any individual who the Secretary 
     knows is unlawfully in the United States, and shall ensure 
     that each contract for assistance entered into under section 
     6 or 8 of this Act with a public housing agency provides that 
     the public housing agency shall furnish such information at 
     such times with respect to any individual who the public 
     housing agency knows is unlawfully in the United States.''.

     SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF AFDC BENEFITS FOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN 
                   WHO ARE ABSENT FROM THE HOME FOR A SIGNIFICANT 
                   PERIOD.

       Section 402(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)), as amended by section 1(b)(1) of this Act, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (45);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (46) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (46) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(47)(A) provide that aid shall not be payable under the 
     State plan to a family with respect to any dependent child 
     who has been, or is expected by the caretaker relative in the 
     family to be, absent from the home for a 
     [[Page S4386]]  period of 45 consecutive days or, at the 
     option of the State, such period of not less than 30 and not 
     more than 90 consecutive days as the State may provide for in 
     the State plan;
       ``(B) at the option of the State, provide that the State 
     may establish such good cause exceptions to subparagraph (A) 
     as the State considers appropriate if such exceptions are 
     provided for in the State plan; and
       ``(C) provide that a caretaker relative shall not be 
     eligible for aid under the State plan if the caretaker 
     relative fails to notify the State agency of an absence of a 
     dependent child from the home for the period specified in or 
     provided for under subparagraph (A), by the end of the 5-day 
     period that begins on the date that it becomes clear to the 
     caretaker relative that the dependent child will be absent 
     for the period so specified or provided for in subparagraph 
     (A).''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise specifically provided 
     in subsection (b), the amendments made by this Act shall be 
     effective with respect to calendar quarters beginning on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Special Rule.--In the case of a State that the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services determines requires 
     State legislation (other than legislation appropriating 
     funds) in order to meet the additional requirements imposed 
     by the amendments made by this Act, the State shall not be 
     regarded as failing to comply with the requirements of such 
     amendments before the first day of the first calendar quarter 
     beginning after the close of the first regular session of the 
     State legislature that begins after the date of enactment of 
     this Act. For purposes of this subsection, in the case of a 
     State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the 
     session shall be treated as a separate regular session of the 
     State legislature.
                       [From the Tribune-Review]

                  Fugitive Used Real Name for Welfare

                           (By Lille Wilson)

       James Brabham knew who he was. During a decade on the lam 
     for a 1984 slaying in Pittsburgh, he used at least five 
     aliases and five Social Security numbers.
       But when he went on welfare, Brabham used his real name--
     and his state-issued welfare card bore his current address 
     and photo.
       The cops who arrested him Wednesday in Philadelphia saw the 
     card when they asked Brabham for identification. They hadn't 
     known he was on welfare.
       ``I'm sure it would have made things a lot easier,'' said 
     Detective Joe Hasara of the Federal Fugitive Task Force in 
     Philadelphia, one of the squads that for years pursued lead 
     after dead-end lead searching for Brabham.
       Police--even those looking for longtime fugitives--don't 
     routinely look at welfare rolls to locate suspects, primarily 
     because of the legal obstacles, Hasara said.
       ``It's just not feasible,'' said Hasara, citing red tape. 
     ``We'd have to have one or two people doing nothing but 
     getting subpoenas and court orders. We can't operate like 
     that.''
       Hasara, a Philadelphia police detective who makes up part 
     of the city's federally funded fugitive task force, located 
     Brabham after a typically long and laborious investigation 
     that involved following tips and digging into clues. He won't 
     be more specific than that, for fear of divulging the task 
     force's gumshoe secrets.
       The victim, Charlene Summers, 36, was living with Brabham 
     in Pittsburgh's Beltzhoover area. Police said Brabham 
     reported the January 1984 killing to city homicide in a 
     telephone call. He claimed Summers had attacked him with a 
     knife.
       Brabham, who posted bond days after he was charged with her 
     murder, never showed up at a coroner's hearing. A bench 
     warrant for his arrest went out in May 1984. In March 1990, a 
     federal court handed down a fugitive warrant.
       By then, the Greater Pittsburgh Fugitive Task Force was 
     already hunting him, said FBI Agent Ralph Young, a task force 
     member.
       ``We had people all over the country looking for him,'' 
     Young said. ``He never came back to Pittsburgh.''
       Philadelphia was one of the investigative hot spots: 
     Brabham had relatives there, Young said.
       ``We'd hear sightings. We'd follow up. It'd lead to a dead 
     end,'' he said.
       The state's welfare listings may be accessible to police 
     who petition the Commonwealth Court for specific information, 
     said department spokesman Kevin Campbell.
       Although state law forbids disclosure of individual welfare 
     information for personal, commercial or political uses, a 
     specific statute allows law enforcement queries if authorized 
     by a judge, Campbell said.
       ``District attorneys have done it in the past, certainly,'' 
     said Campbell, who added that police face no other official 
     barriers.
       ``Apparently they've never worked the street,'' Hasara 
     snorted.
       After Brabham's arrest Wednesday, Young telephoned Summers' 
     mother, Lillie Jones, with the news.
       ``For ten years, I never gave up on this,'' said Jones, 70, 
     who described a dream she had Tuesday night. ``She and I was 
     very close. In the spiritual world, we had a lot of 
     connection.
       ``I dreamed some man was chasing her around and around my 
     house with a gun, and around and around my neighbor's house, 
     and she was calling me for help: she ran to me and said, 
     ``Mama, save me.''
     

                          ____________________